CRIME AND JUSTICE BULLETIN · S C STASCS SC 2 CC SC, CC CVS INTRODUCTION Over the 2016-17 financial year, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders constituted 2.8 per cent of the

Circle sentencing restorative justice incarceration recidivism Aboriginal overrepresentation Reoffending Indigenous

AIM To examine the relationship between Circle Sentencing (CS) and the likelihood of incarceration and recidivism.

METHOD Weusetwodatasets.ThefirstisanextractfromtheNewSouthWales(NSW)BureauofCrimeStatisticsandResearch’sReoffendingDatabase(ROD).ThesecondisanextractfromtheAboriginalServicesUnit’s(DepartmentofCommunitiesandJustice)internaldatabase.Thesedataallowustoidentify656courtappearancesfinalisedthroughCS,andover90,000appearancesfinalisedthroughTraditionalSentencing(TS)between1March2005and31August2018.Usingthesedata,wecompareoutcomesforoffendersparticipatinginCSandTS,aftercontrollingfordefendant-casecharacteristicsandtimefixedeffects.Wethendiscusstherole of selection bias in our estimates.

RESULTS Netofcontrolsandfixedeffects,offendersparticipatinginCSare9.3percentagepointslesslikelytoreceiveaprisonsentence.WhencomparedtotherateatwhichoffendersundergoingTSareincarcerated,thisequatestoarelativedecreaseof51.7percent.Amongoffendersnotsenttoprison,offendersundergoingCSare3.9percentagepointslesslikelytoreoffendwithin12months.Whencomparedtothe12monthreoffendingrateofoffendersundergoingTS,thisequatestoarelativedecreaseof9.6percent.Finally,amongoffendersthatdoreoffend,thoseundergoingCStakeanadditional55dayslongertoreoffendthantheirtraditionallysentencedcounterparts.Weare,unfortunately,unabletoaddressthepossibilitythatselectionbiasisdrivingour(associative,non-causal)estimates.Assuch,ourestimatesmustbeinterpretedwithcaution.

CONCLUSION CS is associated with lower levels of incarceration and recidivism.

CRIME AND JUSTICE BULLETIN

NUMBER 226 | APRIL 2020

1

This bulletin has been independently peer reviewed.

KEYWORDS

Circle Sentencing, incarceration and recidivism Steve Yeong and Elizabeth Moore

Suggestedcitation:Yeong,S.andMoore,E.,(2020).CircleSentencing,incarcerationandrecidivism(CrimeandJusticeBulletinNo.226).Sydney:NSWBureauofCrimeStatisticsandResearch.

NSW BUREAU OF CRIME STATISTICS AND RESEARCH 2

CIRCLE SENTENCING, INCARCERATION AND RECIDIVISM

INTRODUCTIONOverthe2016-17financialyear,Aboriginaland/orTorresStraitIslandersconstituted2.8percentoftheAustralianpopulation(ABS,2016)and27.6percentoftheprisonpopulation(ProductivityCommission,2018).Overthissameperiod,governmentsaroundAustraliacollectivelyspentinexcessof$4billionontheprisonsystem,representingarealyear-on-yearincreaseof7.2percent(ProductivityCommission,2018).Giventheeconomic,financialandsocialcostsofAboriginaloverrepresentationincustody,evaluating programs aimed at reducing Aboriginal incarceration rates is crucial for decision makers.

InAustralia,RestorativeJustice(RJ)programsbecameanincreasinglypopularalternativetothetraditionalcriminaljusticeprocessinthelate1990s.RJprogramstypicallyinvolvebringingtheoffenderface-to-facewiththeirvictim(s)inordertorepairharm,restorerelationshipsandstrengthensocialbondswithinacommunity(Larsen,2014).Tothisend,thegeneralconsensusinbothAustralia(Larsen,2014)andinternationally(Latimer,Dowden,&Muise,2005)isthatRJprogramsarebeneficialforoffendersandvictims.VictimsinvolvedinRJprogramstypicallyreporthighlevelsofsatisfactionwiththeprocess,astheybelievetheyaretreatedinafairandrespectfulway(Latimeretal.,2005).Severalstudiesalsosuggestthatoffendersaremorelikelytotakeresponsibilityfortheiractionsandthusaremorelikelytocomplywiththeirsentencingconditions(Larsen,2014;Latimeretal.,2005;Shaplandetal.,2007;Strangetal.,2006).

Unfortunately,thereislittleevidencetosuggestthatRJprogramshaveanyimpactonreoffendingrateswhencomparedwiththebusiness-as-usualCriminalJusticeSystem(CJS)response.1ForinstanceinNSW,priorresearchindicatesthatyouthjusticeconferencing(usedtodivertyoungoffendersfromcourt)isnobetterthantheChildren’sCourtinreducingrecidivism(Smith&Weatherburn,2012),andForumSentencing(anRJinformedapproachtosentencingadultoffenders)isnobetterthantheLocalCourtinreducingrecidivism(Jones,2009;Poynton,2013).

Thereis,however,almostnoresearchinvestigatingtheimpactofsuchprogramsonanimportantsubset of the general population: Aboriginal Australians.2FollowingtherecommendationsoftheRoyalCommissionintoAboriginalDeathsinCustody,RJprogramshavebecomeincreasinglyavailableforAboriginaloffendersinAustralia(Marchetti&Daly,2004).RJprogramsdirectedtowardIndigenousAustralians generally aim to involve members of the local community in the sentencing process. This bulletinfocusesonthelargestRJinformedprogramforAboriginaloffendersinNSW,CircleSentencing.

Circle Sentencing in NSW

CircleSentencing(CS)hasbeeninoperationinNSWsince2002.3CSisanalternativesentencingoption,withthefullsentencingpowerofatraditionalcourt,forAboriginaloffendersthatmeetaspecificsetofconditions.TheideabehindCSistoincludethelocalAboriginalcommunityinthesentencingprocess.Inpractice,thistypicallyinvolvesthepresidingmagistrateworkingwithagroupofAboriginalelders,victims,respectedmembersofthecommunityandtheoffender’sfamilytodeterminetheappropriatesentence.

CSwasintroducedwitheightobjectives.Theseobjectives,outlinedintheCriminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW),include:(1)toincludemembersofAboriginalcommunitiesinthesentencingprocess;(2)toincreasetheconfidenceofAboriginalcommunitiesinthesentencingprocess;(3)toreducebarriersbetweenAboriginalcommunitiesandthecourts;(4)toprovidemoreappropriatesentencingoptionsforAboriginaloffenders;(5)toprovideeffectivesupporttovictimsofoffencescommittedbyAboriginal

1 OnenotableexceptionisastudyconductedbyMcGrarrellandHipple(2007),whofindsomeevidenceofa(beneficial)relationshipbetweenaRJinterventionandreoffendinginIndiana.2 ArelatedbutdistinctbranchofresearchcomparestheeffectofRJprogramsforAboriginalandnon-Aboriginaloffenders.Forexample,Little,Stewart,andRyan(2018)comparetherecidivismratesofamatchedgroupofAboriginalandnon-Aboriginaloffenders.Littleetal.(2018)findthattheformerofthesegroupshadhigherratesofpost-conferencerecidivism,althoughthisgroupmayhavebeenatahigherriskofreoffendingirrespectiveoftheintervention.3 OtherAustralianstateandterritoriesrunsimilarprograms.Forexample,theKooricourtsinVictoria,theMurricourtsinQueenslandandtheNungacourts in South Australia.



offenders;(6)toprovideforthegreaterparticipationofAboriginaloffendersandtheirvictimsinthesentencingprocess;(7)toincreasetheawarenessofAboriginaloffendersoftheconsequencesoftheiroffencesontheirvictimsandtheAboriginalcommunitiestowhichtheybelong;(8)toreducerecidivisminAboriginal communities.

TheNowraLocalCourtwasthefirstsitetointroduceCS.SincethenCShasexpandedtooperateinatotalof12LocalCourtsinNSW.4ThetimingandlocationofeachparticipatingcourtaredetailedinTable1andFigure1.

Table 1. Local Courts with Circle Sentencing by date of commencement

Local Court CS available from

Nowra February2002

Dubbo October2003

Brewarrina January2005

Lismore January2006

Bourke January2006

Kempsey January2006

Armidale April2006

Walgett July2006

Mt Druitt January2007

Nambucca April2009

Blacktown July2010

Moree October2010

Figure 1. Local Government Areas where Circle Sentencing is available

4 Forcontext,between2005and2019,149LocalCourtswereinoperationinNSW.



Selection criteria for Circle Sentencing in NSW

InordertoparticipateinCS,adefendantmustbe:

1. Aboriginal;

2. foundguiltyofanon-excludedoffence;5

3. appearingataparticipatingLocalCourt;

4. likelytoreceivearelevantsentence;6

5. agreetoparticipate;and

6. beassessedassuitablebythelocalAboriginalCommunityJusticeGroup(ACJG).7

Inordertobedeemedsuitable,anoffenderundergoesthefollowingprocess:

1. Thepresidingmagistratemustdecidetorefertheoffenderforasuitabilityassessment.Offendersnotreferred for assessment undergo Traditional Sentencing (TS).

2. Ifreferredforassessment,conditionalontheoffender’sconsent,thecourt’sProgramOfficer(PO)8 thenconvenesameetingoftheACJG.

3. TheACJGthenmeettoconducttheassessment.FactorsconsideredbytheACJGinclude:thedefendant’sconnectednesstothelocalcommunity;theimpactoftheoffenceonthecommunity;thenatureoftheoffence;andfinally,thebenefitsofthecircletotheoffender,victimandcommunity.

4. IftheACJGdeemtheoffendersuitable,thenthemagistratemakesaprogramparticipationorder.IftheACJGdeemsthedefendantunsuitable,thentheoffenderundergoesTS.

5. Afterbeingdeemedsuitable,thePOthenconvenestheCSgroupandthecircletakesplace.

A CS group is typically made up of: four Aboriginal elders (usually two men and two women) selected onthebasisoftheirexperiencewiththeoffender,victimand/ornatureoftheoffence;thepresidingmagistrate;thePO;apoliceprosecutor;theoffender;theoffender’slegalrepresentative;andfinally,thevictim and their support person. The presiding magistrate must approve all participants in the circle in orderforthecircletogoahead.Duringthecircle,participantssitinacircleanddiscuss:thebackgroundoftheoffender;theoffence;theimpactonthevictim;howsimilarcrimeshavebeenaffectingthecommunity;whatcanbedonetopreventfurtheroffending;andhowallofthiscanbeincorporatedintoasentencingplan.Whilethepresidingmagistrateretainsfinalsay,itisgenerallybymajorityrulethatmembers of the circle determine the penalty.

Prior research on Circle Sentencing in NSW

Priorqualitativeresearch(CulturalandIndigenousResearchCentre,2008;Daly&Proietti-Scifoni,2009;Potasetal.,2003)hasfoundCStobegenerallybeneficial.ThesestudiesreportthatCSreducesperceivedbarriersbetweenAboriginalpeopleandthecourts,increasestheoffender’sawarenessoftheconsequencesoftheiractions,increasesconfidenceinsentencingandresultsinmoreappropriatesentencingoutcomes.However,severallimitationsofCShavealsobeennotedbyresearchers,particularlyintheearlystagesofimplementation.Someoftheselimitationsinclude:inadequatedrugandalcoholsupportservicesinsomelocations;insufficientdatacollectedoninvolvementofvictims;andfinally,thecirclenotproceedingasplanned(e.g.,defendantsrefusingtolistentoorthefollowadviceoftheelders).TheonlyquantitativeevaluationofCSwasconductedbytheNSWBureauofCrimeStatisticsandResearch

5 Excludedoffencesinclude:assaultoccasioninggrievousbodilyharm;rapeandothersexualoffences;childpornographyoffences;offencesinvolvingtheuseofafirearm;andcertaindrugoffences.InterestedreadersaredirectedtoSection348oftheCriminalProcedureAct1986(NSW)forthecompletelistofexcludedoffences.6 Suchasasentenceofimprisonment,asuspendedsentence,anintensivecorrectionorder,homedetention,communityserviceorder,orgoodbehaviourbond.7 TheACJGisa(court-specific)groupofAboriginalpeopleappointedbytheresponsibleportfolioministerontherecommendationoftheProgramOfficer.8 TheProgramOfficerisaNSWDepartmentofCommunitiesandJusticeemployeeresponsiblefor,amongotherthings,coordinatingCSateachsite.



(BOCSAR)in2008.Usingcourtoutcomedatafrom2002to2007,Fitzgerald(2008)employedamatchingstrategytoinvestigatetherelationshipbetweenCSandrecidivism.ShefoundnostatisticallysignificantdifferenceinrecidivismratesbetweenoffendersundergoingCSanda(matched)controlgroupwhoweresentenced in the usual way by the Local Court.

The current study

The objective of the current study is to provide a follow-up evaluation more than a decade later. Specifically,thecurrentstudyisconcernedwithansweringthefollowingthreeresearchquestions:

1. AreoffendersparticipatinginCSlesslikelytoreceiveasentenceofimprisonmentthanoffendersundergoing TS?

2. AreoffendersparticipatinginCSlesslikelytoreoffendthanoffendersundergoingTS?

3. DooffendersparticipatinginCStakelongertoreoffendthanoffendersundergoingTS?

METHOD

Data

Weusetwodatasetsinthepresentstudy.ThefirstdatasetisanextractfromtheNSWBOCSAR’sReoffendingDatabase(ROD).TheRODextractcontainsinformationrelatingtoallcriminalproceedingsfinalisedinaNSWLocalCourtbetween1March2005and31July2019.Foreachcourtappearance,weareabletoobserve:thecourthousewherethematterwasfinalised;thebailhearingdate;thedatethematterwasfinalised(i.e.,thedatethatthesentencewasformallyhandeddown);andtheprincipalpenaltyassociatedwiththefinalisation.Wearealsoabletoobserveeachdefendant’s:age;gender;SEIFApercentilerank;9numberofpriorcourtappearances(withaprovenoffence);priorsentencesofimprisonment;andfinally,whetherthedefendantwasgrantedbailattheirfirstbailhearingforthatmatter.Foreachchargewithinacourtappearance,weareabletoobserve:thedateofeachoffence;theANZSOCcodeassociatedwitheachoffence;10aswellasthepleato,andoutcomeof,eachcharge.

The second dataset is an extract from the Aboriginal Services Unit’s (ASU’s) internal database.11 The ASU databasecontainsinformationrelatingtoallparticipatingoffender’sfirstreferralandsubsequentcirclebetween1March2005and31August2018.12 The ASU database allows us to observe: the date that the offenderwasreferredforasuitabilityassessment;theoutcomeofthesuitabilityassessment;thedateofthecircle;thesentencingdate;andfinally,anindicatorforwhetherthecirclewascancelled(e.g.,becausetheoffenderreoffendedpriortothecircle).

TheASUdatabasecontainsinformationrelatingto976uniqueoffendersreferredforasuitabilityassessment.Wewereabletomatch972oftheseoffenderstoindividualsinRODusingtheirdateofbirth,firstandlastname.Ofthese972offenders,242(24.9%)wereeitherdeemedunsuitable,didn’tconsenttoCS,orhadtheircirclecancelled.13Hence,thisleftuswith730circles(and242referralsthatsubsequentlyresultedinTS)thatneededtobematchedtocourtappearancesinROD.Inordertomatchcircles/referrals(recordedintheASUdatabase)tocourtappearances(inROD),weemployedtheprocedureillustratedinFigure2.14

9 SEIFAscoresareameasureofsocioeconomicdisadvantagebasedonthedefendant’spostcodeofresidenceatthetimeoffinalisation.Higherscoresindicatelowerlevelsofdisadvantage.InterestedreadersaredirectedtoABS(2011a)formoreinformation.10 ANZSOCcodesareusedtogroupoffencesacrossAustralianandNewZealandjurisdictions.InterestedreadersaredirectedtoABS(2011b)formoreinformation.11 TheASUisabusinessunitwithintheNSWDepartmentofCommunitiesandJustice.12 Thatis,ifanoffenderhasmorethanonereferral/circle,onlyinformationrelatingtothefirstreferral/circleisrecorded.13 These three categories cannot be disaggregated using the ASU database.14 Thatis,becauseoffendersparticipatinginCSonlyshowuponceintheASUdatabasebut(typically)multipletimesinROD,weemploythefollowingfivestepprocedure.InthefirststepwedesignateacasetobefinalisedthroughCSifthesentencingdateisidenticalinRODandtheASUdatabase.Inthesecond



Intotal,wewereabletomatch656ASUcirclestocourtappearancesinROD.15InordertoavoidinadvertentlydesignatingaCSappearanceasaTSappearance,weexcludeunmatchedindividuals(andalloftheirappearancesinROD)fromthesample.AsimilarissuerelatestothefactthattheASUdatabaseonlyallowsustoidentifyanoffender’sfirstreferral/circle.Onceagain,toavoidinadvertentlydesignatingaCSappearanceasaTSappearance,weexcludefromthesamplenon-CSappearancesforoffendersthathave participated in at least one circle.

Figure 2. Data matching process

ASU database: 976 offenders referred to a suitability assessment

Yes

No

No Yes

n=4

n=242 n=730

ASU = Aboriginal Services UnitCS = Circle SentencingROD = Reoffending Data Collection

Match to ROD

523 cases with an identical sentencing date in both the ASU database and ROD

OR52 cases where the sentencing date recorded in the ASU database was within 31 days of the sentencing date in ROD

OR32 cases where the bail hearing date in the ASU database was within 31 days of the bail hearing date in ROD

OR22 cases in the ASU database where the offence date was within 31 days of the principal offence date in ROD

OR27 cases where the CS date was within 31 days of the sentencing date in ROD

Match to ROD

31 cases with an identical sentencing date in both the ASU database and ROD

OR10 cases where the sentencing date recorded in the ASU database was within 31 days of the sentencing date in ROD

OR67 cases where the bail hearing date in the ASU database was within 31 days of the bail hearing date in ROD

OR41 cases in the ASU database where the offence date was within 31 days of the principal offence date in ROD

Undergo CS

n=972

Linked to ROD based on individual

identifier

No YesNo Yes n=74 n=656n=149n=93

InordertomakedefendantsundergoingTraditionalSentencing(TS)ascomparableaspossibletooffendersundergoingCS,weemployfivesamplerestrictionsbasedontheeligibilitycriteriadescribedunderthelegislation.First,welimitoursampletodefendantsfoundguiltyofanon-excludedoffence.Second,welimitoursampletooffendersthatidentifiedasAboriginaltothepolicewhencharged.16Third,

stepwedesignateacasetobefinalisedthroughCSifthesentencingdateintheASUdatabaseiswithinaplusorminus31dayintervalofthesentencingdateinROD.Third,wedesignateacasetobefinalisedthroughCSifthedatethecirclewasheldboth:differedfromthesentencingdate,andwaswithinaplusorminus31dayintervalofthesentencingdateinROD.Fourth,wedesignateacasetobefinalisedthroughCSifthebailhearingdateintheASUdatabasewaswithinaplusorminus31dayintervalofthebailhearingdateinROD.Andfinally,wedesignateacasetobefinalisedthroughCSiftheoffencedateintheASUdatabaseiswithinaplusorminus31dayintervalofthe(principal)offencedateinROD.Ifacasecannotbematchedinanyofthesesteps,wedesignatethecase as “unmatched” and exclude all court appearances related to the individual from our estimation sample.15 Asarobustnesscheck,reportedinTableA2oftheAppendix,welimittheestimationsampletothe523perfectlymatchedcasesandre-estimateourpreferredanalyticalspecification.Wefindnomeaningfuldeviationfromthemainresults.16 WhetherapersonidentifiesasAboriginalcanchangeovertime.InterestedreadersaredirectedtoBiddleandMarkham(2018)forfurtherinformationregardingthedynamicsofAboriginalself-identification.Changingself-identificationovertimedoesnot,however,poseanissueforouranalysisas,inourpreferredanalyticalspecification,welimitourcomparisontooffenderssentencedwithinthesamemonth-year.



welimitoursampletooffendersreceivingapenaltythathasbeenimposedbyaCSgroup.17Fourth,welimitthesampletomonth-yearswithatleastonecircle(e.g.,iftherewerezerocirclesheldinJuly2005,thenweremoveallappearancesoccurringinJuly2005).18Andfinally,forappearancesfinalisedthroughTS,welimitthesampletoappearancesfinalisedincourtswithoutCSavailableatthetimeoffinalisation.This is to ensure that defendants (implicitly) deemed unsuitable for CS by the presiding magistrate are not used as a control for CS participants.19

Descriptive statistics

Webeginourinvestigationbyexaminingtheprincipal(i.e.,themostserious)offencecommittedbyoffendersinoursample.Theseoffencesinclude:violentcrime(i.e.,homicide;assault;sexualassault;dangerousornegligentacts;abduction,harassment;androbbery);propertycrime(i.e.,breakandenter;theft;fraudanddeceptionoffences;propertydamageandenvironmentalpollution);drugoffences(i.e.,import;deal;manufacture;useorpossessillicitdrugs);trafficoffences(i.e.,offencesinvolvingtheuseofamotorvehicle);publicorderandmiscellaneousoffences(e.g.,offensiveconduct,publichealthandsafetyoffences);andfinally,offencesagainstjusticeprocedures(i.e.,breachingacourtorder).

Table2reportsthenumberandproportionofoffendersinoursampleundergoingTSandCSthathavecommittedparticularoffences.FromTable2wecanseethatoffendersparticipatinginCSarefarmorelikelytohavecommittedaviolentoffencethanthoseparticipatinginTS(47.7%vs.28.5%),lesslikelytohavecommittedapropertyoffence(12.4%vs.20.8%),drugoffence(5.9%vs.0.5%)oranoffenceagainstjusticeprocedures(17.5%vs.20.9%).

Table 2. Index offences for traditional and circle sentenced groups

Traditional Sentencing Circle Sentencing

N % N % Difference Std Err

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Baseline offence

Violent crime 26,272 28.47 313 47.71 0.192*** (0.020)

Property crime 19,224 20.83 81 12.35 -0.085*** (0.013)

Drug offences 5,449 5.90 3.00 0.46 -0.054*** (0.003)

Traffic offences 13,238 14.35 89 13.57 -0.008 (0.013)

Public order & miscellaneous offence 8,845 9.58 55 8.38 -0.012 (0.011)

Offences against justice procedures 19,256 20.87 115 17.53 -0.033* (0.015)

Total 92,284 100.00 656 100.00 Note.N=observations,StdErr=StandardError,robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,p<.001***,p<.01*,p<.05*.

Table3reportsdescriptivestatisticsforallvariablesusedinourstudy.20Table3containsthreepanels.PanelAprovidesinformationfortheoutcomevariablesofinterest.Theseoutcomemeasuresinclude:

1. Prison: Abinaryvariableequaltooneifthedefendantreceivesasentenceofimprisonment,zerootherwise.

2. Reoffend within 12 months: Among(the82.1%of)offendersthatdonotreceiveaprisonsentence,21thisvariableisequaltooneiftheoffenderhasatleastone(proven)offencewithin12monthsofsentencing,zerootherwise.Weexcludeoffendersreceivingaprisonsentencefromourmeasureofrecidivisminordertoavoidtheeffectofbeingincarceratedfromcontaminatingtheestimates.22

17 Thatis,weremoveappearancesresultinginapenaltythathasneverbeenimposedthroughCS.Forexample,CShasneverresultedinjuveniledetentionsinceonlyadultoffendersareeligibletoparticipate.18 InTableA2oftheAppendixwerelaxthissamplerestriction.19 InTableA2oftheAppendixwerelaxthissamplerestriction(withandwithoutcourtfixedeffects).20 WedonotincludethesetofoffencefixedeffectsinTable2inanyofourregressionsbecauseoftherelativelysmallnumberofoffenderswithineachcategory.Insteadweuseacontinuousmeasureofoffenceseverity,theMedianSentencingRanking,whichisdescribedshortly.21 Itisalsoworthmentioningthatthis,ifanything,shouldproduceaconservativeestimateoftheprogram’sbenefitonrecidivismifCSlowerstheprobabilityof a prison sentence.22 Thatis,priorresearchhasconsistentlyfoundacausallinkbetweenincarcerationandincreasedratesofpost-releaserecidivism(seeforexampleRahman,2019).



3. Days until next re-offence:Among(the58.8%of)offendersthatdonotreceiveaprisonsentenceandre-offendatleastoncepriorto31July2019,thisvariableisequaltothenumberofdaysbetweentheoffender’ssentencingdateandtheirfirst(proven)re-offence.23

Thet-testfromPanelAindicatesthatdefendantsparticipatinginCSare11.7percentagepointslesslikelytoreceiveaprisonsentence.Inrelativeterms,expressedasafractionoftheincarcerationrateforoffendersundergoingTS,thisequatestoapproximatelyatwo-thirdsreduction.PanelAalsoindicatesthatoffendersundergoingCSare5.5percentagepointslesslikelytoreoffendwithin12months(13.6%lesslikelyinrelativeterms).Finally,wecanalsoseethatwhentheydoreoffend,offendersundergoingCStakeaboutfourmonthslongertoreoffend(23.5%longerinrelativeterms).

Itis,however,importanttobearinmindthatoffendersundergoingCSarelikelytosystematicallydifferfromtheirtraditionallysentencedcounterparts.NotonlyareoffendersundergoingCSmorelikelytohavecommittedaviolentoffence,theyhavealsoconsentedtoCSandpassedthesuitabilityassessment.Thedefendant-casecharacteristicsreportedinPanelBallowustoexaminethispropositioninmoredetail.PanelBprovidesdescriptivestatisticsforallcontrolvariablesusedinourstudy.

These control variables include:

• Age: Offender’sageatthetimeofsentencing;

• Age at first contact: Offender’sageatfirstknowncontactwiththeCJS;

• Sex: Abinaryvariableequaltooneiftheoffenderismale,zeroiftheoffenderisfemale;

• SEIFA: TheSEIFApercentilerankfortheoffender’splaceofresidence,whichwehaverecodedintofiveindicatorvariables,oneforeachquartileofthedistributionandoneforthosewithamissingSEIFArank;

• Remoteness: A set of binary variables indicating whether the defendant’s place of residence is in a MajorCity,Innerregional,OuterregionalorRemote/Veryremotearea.Wealsohaveabinaryvariableindicatingwhetherthisinformationismissing;

• Concurrent charges: Numberof(proven)concurrentchargesatthecourtappearance;

• Prior court appearances: Numberofpriorcourtappearances(withatleastoneprovenoffence);

• Prior prison sentences:Numberofpriorprisonsentences;

• Median Sentencing Ranking (MSR):MSRofthedefendant’sprincipaloffence;24

• Plea:Asetofbinaryvariablesindicatingwhetherthedefendantenteredintoapleaof:notguilty;guilty,ornopleaentered.

Table2andPanelBofTable3telltwocompetingstoriesregardingoffendersundergoingCS.Ononehand,offendersparticipatinginCShave:fewerpriorcourtappearances;fewerprisonsentences;aremorelikelytohaveenteredintoapleaofguilty;andhavebeengrantedbail.Thissuggeststhattheyare,onaverage,ofalowerriskprofilethanoffendersundergoingTS.Ontheotherhand,however,offendersparticipatinginCSare:younger;havemoreconcurrentcharges;havecommittedmoreserious(violent)offences;andfinally,madefirstcontactwiththeCJSatanearlierstageinlife.Weare,therefore,unabletosignthebiasassociatedwithCS(i.e.,toknowwhetheroffendersparticipatinginCSareofahigherorlowerriskprofilethanoffendersparticipatinginTS).

23 InTableA2oftheAppendixwelimittheestimationsampletoappearancesfinalisedonorbefore31July2018inordertoleavea12monthfollow-upwindow for all observations.24 TheMSRisameasureofoffenceseverityconstructedfromthepenaltyassociatedwithagivenoffence.MacKinnelletal.(2010)providefurtherinformationregardinghowtheMSRisconstructed.



Tabl

e 3.

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

Full

sam

ple

Trad

ition

ally

sen

tenc

edCi

rcle

sen

tenc

edD

iffer

ence

Obs

Mea

nSt

d. D

ev.

Obs

Mea

nSt

d. D

ev.

Obs

Mea

nSt

d. D

ev.

Estim

ate

Std.

Err

.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

Pane

l A. O

utco

me

vari

able

s

Pris

on92

,940

0.17

90.38

392

,284

0.18

00.38

465

60.06

30.24

2-0.117

***

(0.010

)

Reoff

end

with

in 1

2 m

onth

s gi

ven

no

pris

on76

,303

0.40

40.49

175

,688

0.40

50.49

161

50.35

00.47

7-0.055

**(0.019

)

V

iole

nt o

ffen

ce76

,303

0.11

30.31

675

,688

0.11

20.31

661

50.15

40.36

20.04

2**

(0.015

)

P

rope

rty

offen

ce76

,303

0.10

00.30

075

,688

0.10

00.30

061

50.07

00.25

5-0.030

**(0.010

)

D

rug

offen

ce76

,303

0.04

30.20

275

,688

0.04

30.20

261

50.02

10.14

4-0.022

***

(0.006

)

W

eapo

n off

ence

76,303

0.00

70.08

475

,688

0.00

70.08

561

50.00

50.07

0-0.002

(0.003

)

T

raffi

c off

ence

76,303

0.07

90.27

075

,688

0.07

90.27

061

50.04

90.21

6-0.031

***

(0.009

)

P

ublic

ord

er &

mis

cella

neou

s

off

ence

s76

,303

0.03

80.19

175

,688

0.03

80.19

161

50.03

90.19

40.00

1(0.008

)

O

ffen

ces

agai

nst j

ustic

e pr

oced

ures

76,303

0.02

50.15

675

,688

0.02

50.15

661

50.01

10.10

6-0.014

**(0.004

)

Reoff

end

for s

elec

ted

crim

e92

,940

0.07

80.26

992

,284

0.07

90.26

965

60.04

00.19

5-0.039

***

(0.008

)

S

elec

ted

viol

ent c

rime

92,940

0.00

40.06

392

,284

0.00

40.06

365

60.00

30.05

5-0.001

(0.002

)

S

elec

ted

prop

erty

crim

e92

,940

0.07

40.26

292

,284

0.07

50.26

365

60.03

70.18

8-0.038

***

(0.007

)

Day

s un

til fi

rst r

eoff

ence

54

,674

534.88

765

8.51

654

,226

533.86

365

7.75

244

865

8.85

373

5.54

712

4.99

0***

(34.82

8)

Pane

l B. C

ontr

ol v

aria

bles

Age

92,933

31.355

9.93

392

,277

31.364

9.93

665

630

.140

9.48

8-1.223

***

(0.372

)

Age

at fi

rst c

onta

ct w

ith ju

stic

e sy

stem

92,790

20.894

8.64

992

,134

20.902

8.65

965

619

.739

7.06

8-1.163

***

(0.277

)

Mal

e92

,940

0.71

80.45

092

,284

0.71

80.45

065

60.69

70.46

0-0.021

(0.018

)

SEIF

A Q

1 (L

owes

t SES

)92

,940

0.35

90.48

092

,284

0.35

70.47

965

60.72

30.44

80.36

6***

(0.018

)

SEIF

A Q

292

,940

0.28

50.45

192

,284

0.28

50.45

265

60.16

80.37

4-0.118

***

(0.015

)

SEIF

A Q

392

,940

0.19

50.39

692

,284

0.19

60.39

765

60.08

80.28

4-0.107

***

(0.011

)

SEIF

A Q

4 (H

ighe

st S

ES)

92,940

0.05

60.23

092

,284

0.05

60.23

165

60.00

60.07

8-0.050

***

(0.003

)

Mis

sing

SEI

FA92

,940

0.10

50.30

792

,284

0.10

60.30

765

60.01

50.12

3-0.090

***

(0.005

)

Inne

r reg

iona

l92

,940

0.28

30.45

192

,284

0.28

20.45

065

60.49

40.50

00.21

2***

(0.020

)

Maj

or c

ities

92,940

0.39

00.48

892

,284

0.39

20.48

865

60.16

90.37

5-0.223

***

(0.015

)

Out

er re

gion

al92

,940

0.18

10.38

592

,284

0.18

10.38

565

60.13

40.34

1-0.047

***

(0.013

)

Rem

ote

92,940

0.04

10.19

992

,284

0.04

00.19

765

60.18

80.39

10.14

7***

(0.015

)



Tabl

e 3.

Des

crip

tive

sta

tist

ics

(con

tinue

d)

Full

sam

ple

Trad

ition

ally

sen

tenc

edCi

rcle

sen

tenc

edD

iffer

ence

Obs

Mea

nSt

d. D

ev.

Obs

Mea

nSt

d. D

ev.

Obs

Mea

nSt

d. D

ev.

Estim

ate

Std.

Err

.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

Mis

sing

Are

a92

,940

0.10

40.30

592

,284

0.10

50.30

665

60.01

50.12

3-0.090

***

(0.005

)

No.

con

curr

ent c

harg

es92

,940

1.64

71.01

992

,284

1.64

51.01

965

61.97

40.87

80.32

9***

(0.034

)

MSR

of p

rinci

pal o

ffen

ce92

,940

74.994

29.080

92,284

75.037

29.117

656

68.980

22.564

-6.057

***

(0.886

)

Bail

at fi

rst c

ourt

app

eara

nce

92,896

0.91

90.27

392

,240

0.91

90.27

365

60.95

30.21

20.03

4***

(0.008

)

Plea

d gu

ilty

92,940

0.61

30.48

792

,284

0.61

20.48

765

60.86

30.34

40.25

1***

(0.014

)

No

plea

ent

ered

92,940

0.24

00.42

792

,284

0.24

10.42

865

60.09

90.29

9-0.142

***

(0.012

)

Plea

d no

t gui

lty92

,940

0.14

70.35

492

,284

0.14

80.35

565

60.03

80.19

2-0.109

***

(0.008

)

No.

prio

r cou

rt a

ppea

ranc

es

(with

pro

ven

offen

ces)

92,940

8.05

07.53

592

,284

8.05

97.54

265

66.84

56.30

5-1.214

***

(0.247

)

No.

prio

r pris

on s

ente

nces

92,940

1.90

23.45

292

,284

1.90

73.45

765

61.20

12.52

1-0.706

***

(0.099

)

Pane

l C. S

ente

ncin

g ou

tcom

es

Bond

with

sup

ervi

sion

92,940

0.10

00.30

092

,284

0.09

90.29

865

60.31

30.46

40.21

4***

(0.018

)

Bond

with

out c

onvi

ctio

n w

ith

supe

rvis

ion

92,940

0.00

20.03

992

,284

0.00

10.03

665

60.03

00.17

20.02

9***

(0.007

)

Bond

with

out c

onvi

ctio

n w

ithou

t su

perv

isio

n92

,940

0.04

50.20

792

,284

0.04

40.20

665

60.07

90.27

00.03

5***

(0.011

)

Bond

with

out s

uper

visi

on92

,940

0.13

20.33

892

,284

0.13

20.33

865

60.08

20.27

5-0.050

***

(0.011

)

Conv

ictio

n on

ly92

,940

0.02

50.15

692

,284

0.02

50.15

665

60.00

30.05

5-0.022

***

(0.002

)

Fine

92,940

0.24

80.43

292

,284

0.25

00.43

365

60.02

70.16

3-0.222

***

(0.007

)

Hom

e de

tent

ion

92,940

0.00

10.02

892

,284

0.00

10.02

865

60.00

20.03

90.00

1(0.002

)

Impr

ison

men

t92

,940

0.17

90.38

392

,284

0.18

00.38

465

60.06

30.24

2-0.117

***

(0.010

)

No

conv

ictio

n re

cord

ed92

,940

0.01

60.12

592

,284

0.01

60.12

665

60.00

80.08

7-0.008

*(0.003

)

No

pena

lty92

,940

0.11

80.32

392

,284

0.11

90.32

465

60.01

40.11

6-0.105

***

(0.005

)

Oth

er p

enal

ties

92,940

0.02

10.14

492

,284

0.02

10.14

565

60.00

90.09

5-0.012

**(0.004

)

Inte

nsiv

e Co

rrec

tion

Ord

er92

,940

0.00

70.08

692

,284

0.00

70.08

665

60.00

90.09

50.00

2(0.004

)

Com

mun

ity S

ervi

ce O

rder

92,940

0.03

60.18

592

,284

0.03

50.18

465

60.11

40.31

80.07

9***

(0.012

)

Susp

ende

d se

nten

ce w

ith s

uper

visi

on92

,940

0.04

50.20

792

,284

0.04

40.20

465

60.20

70.40

60.16

4***

(0.016

)

Susp

ende

d se

nten

ce w

ithou

t su

perv

isio

n92

,940

0.02

60.15

992

,284

0.02

60.15

965

60.04

00.19

50.01

4(0.008

)

Note.N=o

bservatio

ns,rob

uststand

arderrorsinparentheses,p<.00

1***,p<.01

**,p<.05

*.



PanelCprovidesthedistributionofpenaltiesimposedonoffendersinoursample.FromPanelCwecanseethatthemostcommonlyimposedpenaltiesare:abond(10.0%withsupervisionandconviction,13.2%withoutsupervisionwithconviction);afine(24.8%);imprisonment(17.9%);andfinally,nopenalty(11.8%).Interestingly,whencomparedwiththeirtraditionallysentencedcounterparts,offendersundergoingCSare:21.4,7.9,and16.4percentagepointsmorelikelytoreceiveabond(withsupervision),aCommunityServiceOrderorasuspendedsentence(withsupervision).ThisappearstobedrivenmostlybylargereductionsintheprobabilityofCSparticipantsreceivingafine,nopenaltyorimprisonment.

Empirical approach

FromTables2and3weknowthatoffendersparticipatinginCSsystematicallydifferfromoffendersparticipatinginTS.Assuch,weshouldapproachasimplecomparisonofoutcomeswithcaution.Forconcreteness,butwithoutlossofgeneralitytootheroutcomemeasures,supposethatwe’reinterestedinidentifyingthecausaleffectofCSontheprobabilitythatanoffenderre-offendswithin12monthsofsentencing.25

This relationship is given by the LogisticregressioninEquation1below.

yit = Λ(β0 + β1CSit + γX’it + λt + ϵit) (1)

Where i indexes a case and t indexes a month-year.26 yit is a binary variable taking value one if the defendantinagivencasereoffendswithin12monthsoftheirsentencingdate,zerootherwise.CS

it is

abinaryvariableequaltoonefordefendantssentencedthroughCS,zerofordefendantssentencedthrough TS. X’it representsthesetofcontrolvariablesdescribedinPanelBofTable3.λt represents a set ofmonth-by-yearFixedEffects(FEs).TheseFEslimitourcomparisontooffenderssentencedwithinthesamemonth-year.ThisrendersourestimatesrobusttotimevaryingfactorsthatinfluencecrimeacrossNSW(e.g.,changestotheunemploymentrate,seasonalityandadvancesinsecuritytechnology).ϵit is the errortermandallothertermsarecoefficientstobeestimated.Thecoefficientofinterestisβ1,whichcharacterisestherelationshipbetweenCSandtheprobabilityofatleastonereoffence.

Inorderforβ1tohaveacausalinterpretation,participationinCSwouldhavetobe,netofcontrolsandFEs,unrelatedtoallotherfactorsthatinfluencerecidivism.Thereis,however,goodreasontoexpectthatthisisnotthecase.Forexample,remorseandconnectednesstothelocalcommunityareexplicitlyconsideredbytheACJGwhenassessinganoffender’ssuitability.Thesefactorsarealsolikelytobeassociatedwithlowerlevelsofrecidivism.Assuch,anyregressionofEquation1maycauseustooverestimatethebenefitofCSonrecidivism.Tothebestofourknowledge,thereisnowaytocompletelyaddress this issue given available data.27We,therefore,recommendcautionwheninterpretingthe(associative,non-causal)estimatesreportedinthisbulletin.

25 WeuseaZero-TruncatedNegativeBinomialregressiontoestimatetherelationshipbetweenCSandthenumberofdaysbetweensentencingandtheoffender’sfirstreoffence.26 With Λ(z)=1/(1+e-z). 27 Wedid,however,considertwoalternativeidentificationstrategies.ThefirstwasanInstrumentalVariables(IV)strategydesignedtoexploitvariationineachmagistrate’spropensitytoreferanoffenderforCSasaninstrumentforparticipation.Unfortunately,thefirststagerelationshipwastooweaktosupporttheuseofthisinstrument.ThesecondwasanIVstrategydesignedtoexploitvariationinthetimingoftherolloutofCS.Specifically,thisstrategyinvolveslimitingtheestimationsampletomattersfinalisedincourtsthatwill(atsomepoint)haveCSavailable,creatinganindicatorvariableforwhetherthedefendant’smatterwasfinalisedinacourtwithCSavailable(inthecorrespondingmonth-year),andthenusingthisindicatorasaninstrumentforparticipation.Weelectednottoemploythisstrategyforthreereasons.First,thefactthatwehavesofewtreatedunitsmeanswewouldbeunlikelytodetectastatisticallysignificanteffect(evenifonewaspresent)underTwo-StageLeastSquares.Second,inspectionofeachcourt’saggregatepre-policytrendsinincarcerationsandrecidivismrevealeddivergingtrendsinmanysites.Andfinally,inourview,theexclusionrestrictionisparticularlyhardtojustify.Ifforexample,somesiteswereprioritisedforCSbecauseofanincreasingrateofAboriginalrecidivism,thentherolloutcannotbeusedasaninstrumentforparticipation.



RESULTS

Incarceration and recidivism

Table4reportsthemainresultsandconsistsofthreepanels,oneforeachoutcomemeasure.PanelA examines the relationship between CS and the probability of a prison sentence.28Column1reportsestimatesfromasimple(unconditional)comparisonanalogoustothet-testinTable3.Columns2and3includecontrolvariablesandmonth-by-yearFEs,respectively.Columns2and3indicatethatoffendersundergoingCSare9.3percentagepointslesslikelytoreceiveaprisonsentence.Inrelativeterms,expressedasafractionoftherateatwhichoffendersundergoingTSaresenttoprison,thisequatestoadecreaseof51.7percent.Thesereductions,bothabsoluteandrelative,arestriking.Whileatleastsomeofthisreductionislikelyduetoselectionbias,ourviewisthatthepracticalsignificanceoftheseresultscannot be taken lightly.

Table 4. Relationship between Circle Sentencing, incarceration and recidivism

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Naive Controls Time FE Penalty FE

Panel A. Prison -0.117*** -0.093*** -0.093***

(0.010) (0.010) (0.009)

Observations 92,940 92,746 92,746

Pseudo R2 0.001 0.373 0.381

AUC 0.503 0.894 0.897

Panel B. Reoffend within 12 months -0.055** -0.044* -0.039* -0.030

(0.019) (0.018) (0.018) (0.019)

Observations 76,303 76,159 76,159 76,159

Pseudo R2 0.000 0.079 0.082 0.086

AUC 0.501 0.690 0.694 0.697

Panel C. Days to reoffence 124.661*** 120.721*** 63.431* 55.171*

(34.742) (34.775) (28.079) (28.007)

Observations 54,674 54,569 54,569 54,569

Pseudo R2 0.000 0.006 0.013 0.013

Controls N Y Y Y

Time FE N N Y Y

Penalty FE N N N Y

Note.PanelsAandBreportaveragemarginaleffectsderivedfromaLogisticregression.PanelCreportsaveragemarginaleffectsderivedfromaZero-TruncatedNegativeBinomialregression,AUC=AreaUnderthereceiveroperatingcharacteristicCurve,FE=FixedEffects,standarderrorsobtainedusingtheDeltamethodinparentheses,p<.001***,p<.01**,p<.05*.

PanelBexaminestherelationshipbetweenCSandtheprobabilityofatleastonere-offencewithin12monthsofsentencing.Column3indicatesthatCSisassociatedwitha3.9percentagepointreductionintheprobabilityofatleastonere-offencewithin12months.Inrelativeterms,expressedasafractionoftherecidivismrateofoffendersundergoingTS,thisequatestoadecreaseof9.6percent.Incolumn4weincludeasetofpenaltyFEs.Thatis,weconstrainourcomparisontooffendersreceivingthesamepenaltyandthenre-estimateEquation1.Interestingly,thecoefficientisnowaboutone-quartersmallerin(absolute)sizeandisstatisticallyinsignificant.ThissuggeststhatatleastsomeofthereductioninrecidivismassociatedwithCScanbeattributedtodefendantsreceivingdifferentpenalties.One

28 PanelsAandBreportaveragemarginaleffectsderivedfromaLogisticregression.PanelCreportsaveragemarginaleffectsderivedfromaZero- TruncatedNegativeBinomialregression.InterestedreadersaredirectedtoTableA4intheAppendix,whichreportsthefullsetofestimatescorrespondingtothese regressions.



interpretationofthisfindingisthatcirclegroups,whichincludeamagistrate,areabletoassignmoreeffectivepenaltiesthanamagistrateworkinginisolation.Thisisdiscussedfurtherinthefinalsectionofthe bulletin.

PanelCexaminestherelationshipbetweenCSandthenumberofdaysbetweensentencingandtheoffender’sfirstre-offence.Column3indicatesthatCSisassociatedwithanadditional55daysbeforetheoffender’sfirstreoffence.Inrelativeterms,expressedasafractionofthenumberofdaysbeforeoffendersundergoingTSreoffend,thisequatestoanincreaseof10.3percent.InclusionofthemagistrateFEsincolumn4generatesareductioninsizeandstatisticalprecision,althoughthecoefficientremainsmarginallysignificantatthefivepercentlevel.

Recidivism for specific offences

OurinabilitytoaddresstheselectionbiasissuesoutlinedearliermeansweareunabletomakeanycausalclaimsregardingtheeffectofCSonincarcerationsorrecidivism.Thatsaid,the(significant)negativeassociation between CS and recidivism represents a substantive departure from prior research on CS (Fitzgerald,2008)andRJprogramsmoregenerally(Bergsethand2007;Poynton,2013;Strangetal.,2013;Smith&Weatherburn,2012).Assuch,theseestimateswarrantfurtherinvestigation.

Inordertounpackwhatmaybedrivingthisassociationfurther,wedivideourmeasureofrecidivismintosevenbinaryvariables.Thatis,werecode“Reoffendwithin12months”intosevenbinaryvariables.Eachofthesebinaryvariablestakesvalueoneiftheoffenderreoffendswithin12monthsandtheirfirstreoffenceisaparticulartypeofoffence.29Forexample,oneofthesevennewoutcomevariablestakesvalueoneiftheoffenderbothreoffendswithin12monthsandtheirfirstreoffenceisaviolentoffence.Wethen re-estimateEquation1overthesesevenoutcomes(i.e.,oneregression/outcome)andreporttheestimatesinTable5.FromthefirstrowinTable5wecanseethatoffendersundergoingCSare3.2percentagepointsmorelikelytoreoffendforaviolentoffence.FromTable5wecanalsoseethatthisincreaseismorethanoffsetbydecreasesinreoffendingforpropertycrime(2.2percentagepoints),drugoffences(1.6percentagepoints),trafficoffences(3.2percentagepoints)andoffencesagainstjusticeprocedures(1.1percentagepoints).

Table 5. Relationship between Circle Sentencing and reoffending by reoffence type

Crime category Estimate Standard error

Panel A. All crime

Violent crime 0.032* (0.014)

Property crime -0.022* (0.011)

Drug offences -0.016* (0.007)

Weapon offences -0.001 (0.004)

Public order & miscellaneous 0.000 (0.008)

Traffic offences -0.032*** (0.009)

Offences against justice procedures -0.011* (0.005)

Panel B. Crimes unaffected by reporting/detection bias

Selected violent and property crime -0.020* (0.010)

Selected violent crime 0.005 (0.005)

Selected property crime -0.025** (0.009)Note.ThistablereportsaveragemarginaleffectsderivedfromaLogisticregression,standarderrorsobtainedusingtheDeltamethodinparentheses,p<.001***,p<.01**,p<.05*.

29 Inthisanalysisthemethodusedtoclassifyoffencesintocrimecategorieswasconsistentwiththeclassificationsfortheprincipaloffencetype (seeprevioussectionondescriptivestatistics).DescriptivestatisticsforthesevariablesarereportedinTableA3oftheAppendix.



Oneissueweareyettoaddressisthepossibilityofreportinganddetectionbiascontaminatingourmeasuresofrecidivism.RecallfromPanelCofTable3thatoffendersundergoingCSaremorelikelytoreceivesomeformofsupervision(e.g.,abondorsuspendedsentence)thanoffendersundergoingTS.Itisreasonable,therefore,toquestionwhethertheapparentincreaseinviolentcrime(ordecreaseinothercrimecategories)isareflectionofenhanceddetectionofoffences,ratherthananincrease(ordecrease)intheactuallevelofoffending.Inordertobetterunderstandthisproblem,inPanelBofTable5welimitouranalysistospecifictypesofviolentandpropertycrimeconsideredtobelesssusceptibletoreportingand detection bias.30Theseviolentcrimesinclude:homicide;assaultoccasioninggrievousbodilyharm;androbbery.Thepropertycrimesinclude:breakandenter;theft;andmotorvehicletheft.Wethenre-estimateEquation1usingabinaryvariableequaltooneiftheoffenderre-offendswithin12monthsandtheirfirstreoffenceisoneoftheseselectedcrimes.FromPanelBofTable5wecanseethatCShasno(statisticallysignificant)associationwithviolentrecidivism,whiletheassociationbetweenCSandreoffendingforpropertycrimeislargelyconsistentwithitscounterpartsinTable4andPanelAofTable5.

DISCUSSIONInthisstudywesetouttoexaminetherelationshipbetweenCircleSentencing(CS)andlikelihoodofincarcerationandrecidivism.Wefoundthatnetofcontrolsandfixedeffects,offendersparticipatinginCSare9.3percentagepointslesslikelytoreceiveaprisonsentence.Inrelativeterms,thisequatestoareductionof51.7percent.

Thequestion,therefore,iswhetherthisreductioninincarcerationswasaccompaniedbyanincreaseinrecidivismforoffendersnotsenttoprison.Weusedtwomeasuresofrecidivismtoanswerthisquestion.First,theprobabilityofatleastonere-offencewithin12months;andsecond,thenumberofdaysbetweensentencingandtheoffender’sfirstre-offence.Withrespecttotheformer,wefoundthatoffendersparticipatinginCSare3.9percentagepointslesslikelytoreoffend(9.6%inrelativeterms).Withrespecttothelatter,wefoundthatoffendersparticipatinginCStake55dayslongertoreoffendwhentheydocommitanewoffence(arelativeincreaseof10.3%).

Thereare,however,twocaveatsthatneedtobeconsideredwheninterpretingourestimates.Thefirstisthatourestimatescannotbeinterpretedcausally(i.e.,selectionbiasmayberesponsibleforourresults).Thesecondisthat,evenifour(recidivism)estimatescouldbeinterpretedcausally,wealsofoundsome(limited)evidenceindicatingthatCSmaybeassociatedwithanincreaseinviolentrecidivism;althoughthisincreaseismorethanoffsetbyreductionsinnon-violentcrime.Whetherthebenefitofanetreductionin(non-violent) crime exceeds the cost of an increase in violent crime is beyond the scope of this paper but is an important avenue for future research.31

Inanyevent,ourrecidivismestimatesmeaningfullydepartfromthosereportedbyFitzgerald(2008).Oneexplanationforthisdepartureisteethingissuesduringtheearlyyearsoftheprogram.Forexample,DalyandProietti-Scifoni(2009)identifiedanumberoflimitationsregardingtheearlyimplementationofCS,includinginadequatedrugandalcoholsupportservicesinsomelocations.Therefore,it’spossiblethatCSwasnotoperatingasintendeduntilafterFitzgerald’sevaluation.Anotherrelatedexplanationissamplesize.OursampleissubstantiallylargerthanthesampleavailabletoFitzgerald(2008).Assuch,Fitzgeraldmayhavelackedsufficientpowertodetectaneffect(evenifonewaspresent).

Despiteitslimitations,ourstudydoeshaveseveralimportantimplicationsforresearchersandpolicymakers.Thefirstofwhichistobetterunderstandwhycirclegroupsassigndifferentpenaltieswhencomparedtoamagistrateworkinginisolation.Recallthatoncewelimitedourcomparisontooffenders

30 Thesecrimesareconsideredtobelesssusceptibletoreportinganddetectionbiasbecausevictimshavemoreincentivetoreportsuchoffencestopolice.DescriptivestatisticsforthesevariablesarereportedinTableA3oftheAppendix.31 Mayhew(2003)providesthemostrecentestimatesofthecostsofcrimeinAustralia.Wedonot,however,usetheseestimatestoconductacost-benefitanalysis as the information is likely to be out of date for the majority of our estimation sample



receivingasimilarpenalty,theassociationbetweenCSandrecidivismreducedinmagnitudeandstatistical precision. This suggests that at least some of the association between CS and recidivism is duetocirclegroupsassigningdifferent,potentiallymoreeffective,penalties.Thiscouldbebecausecirclegroupshaveadeeperinsightintothecircumstancesoftheoffenderandarethereforeabletoidentifymoreappropriatepenalties(e.g.,offendersparticipatinginCSarebothmoredisadvantagedthanoffendersparticipatinginTS,andlesslikelytoreceivemonetaryfine).ThesecondistoinvestigatethelinkbetweenCSandhealthoutcomes.GiventhatdrugandalcoholissuesareprevalentamongCSparticipants(CulturalandIndigenousResearchCentre,2008;Daly&Proietti-Scifoni,2009),futureresearch could investigate the relationship between CS and health outcomes by linking (drug and alcohol related)emergencydepartmentpresentationsandhospitalisationsdatawithBOCSAR’sReoffendingDatabase.Thethirdistodetermineif,andunderwhatconditions,CScanbeintroducedinotherlocalities.ExpansionoftheCircleSentencingprogramtootherlocationswouldrequire(1)localsupportfrommagistratesandpoliceprosecutors,(2)availableandaccessiblelegalaidandhealthservices(e.g.drugandalcoholtreatmentfacilities),and(3)arelativelylargeIndigenouspopulation.

Tosummarise,CSclearlyhasthepotentialtolowertheIndigenousincarcerationrate.IfCScanachievethisgoal,withoutadverselyaffectingrecidivism,thenetbenefittosocietyisdifficulttooverstate.Forexample,overthe2016-17financialyear,thecosttotheNSWgovernmentofincarceratinganindividualwas$253perday.32Overthissameperiod,therewere3,141IndigenousAustralianheldincustodyeachday.Hence,evenaone-percentagepointdecreaseequatesto31fewerincarcerationsperday.Thisimpliesasavingof$7,843perdayor$2,862,695peryear.Onthesegroundsalonefurtherresearch,ideallyintheformofalongrunningrandomisedcontrolledtrial,todeterminethetruecausaleffectofCSonreoffendingiscertainlyjustified.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTheauthorswouldliketoexpresstheirgratitudetoMareeJenningsandEdwinaCrawfordfromtheAboriginalServicesUnitfortheirinvaluableadviceontheoperationofCircleSentencinginNSW.Theauthorswouldalsoliketothankthetwoanonymousreviewersfortheirconstructivefeedback,aswellascolleaguesatBOCSAR,inparticularSuzannePoynton,ClareRinglandandLilyTrimbolifortheircommentson earlier drafts of this bulletin.

REFERENCESAustralianBureauofStatistics.(2011a).Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2011(Cat.No.2033.0.55.001).Retrieved20Jul2019fromhttp://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/seifa.

AustralianBureauofStatistics.(2011b).Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classifications (ANZSOC): Australia(Cat.No.1234.0).Retrieved20Jul2019from:http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/1234.0.

AustralianBureauofStatistics.(2016).2016 Census QuickStats.Retrieved20July2019fromhttp://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036.

Bergseth,K.J.,&Bouffard,J.A.(2007).Thelong-termimpactofrestorativejusticeprogrammingforjuvenileoffenders.Journal of Criminal Justice,35,433–451.

32 TheNSWgovernment’stotalnetoperatingexpenditure(includingdepreciation)ontheincarcerationsystemwas$1.1billion.Anaverageof11,916individualswereheldincustodyeachday,3,141ofwhichwereIndigenous.AllinformationusedinthesecalculationsisderivedfromtheReportonGovernmentServices(ProductivityCommission,2018).



Biddle,N.,&Markham,F.(2018).Indigenous identification change between 2011 and 2016: evidence from the Australian Census Longitudinal Dataset.Canberra:CentreforAboriginalEconomicPolicyResearch,AustralianNationalUniversity.

CulturalandIndigenousResearchCentre.(2008).NSW Attorney General’s Department Evaluation of Circle Sentencing Program Report.Retrieved20January2020fromtheIndigenousJusticeClearinghousewebsite:https://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/resources/nsw-attorney-generals-department-evaluation-of-circle-sentencing-program-report/.

Daly,K.,&Proietti-Scifoni,G.(2009).Defendants in the Circle: Nowra Circle Court, the presence, and impact of Elders, and re-Offending.Retrieved10March2020fromhttps://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/227720/2009-Daly-and-Proietti-Scifoni-Defendants-in-the-Circle-updated-Aug-2015.pdf

Fitzgerald,J.(2008).Does circle sentencing reduce Aboriginal offending?(CrimeandJusticeBulletinNo.115).Retrieved10March2020fromNSWBureauofCrimeStatisticsandResearchwebsite:https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb115.pdf

Jones,C.(2009).Does Forum Sentencing reduce re-offending?(CrimeandJusticeBulletinNo.129).Retrieved10March2020fromNSWBureauofCrimeStatisticsandResearchwebsite:https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb129.pdf

Larsen,J.(2014).RestorativejusticeintheAustralian criminal justice system (Research and public policy seriesno.127).Canberra:AustralianInstituteofCriminology.Retrieved1January2020fromhttps://aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp127.

Latimer,J.,Dowden,C.,&Muise,D.(2005).Theeffectivenessofrestorativejusticepractices:Ameta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2),127–144.

Little,S.,Stewart,A.,&Ryan,N.(2018).Restorativejusticeconferencing:Notapanaceafortheover-representationofAustralia’sIndigenousyouthinthecriminaljusticesystem.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(13),4067-4090.

MacKinnell,I.,Poletti,P.,&Holmes,M.(2010).Measuring offence seriousness(CrimeandJusticeBulletinNo.142).Retrieved10March2020fromNSWBureauofCrimeStatisticsandResearchwebsite:https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb142.pdf

Marchetti,E.&Daly,K.(2004).Indigenous courts and justice practices in Australia(TrendsandIssuesinCrimeandCriminalJusticeNo.277).RetrievedfromAustralianInstituteofCriminologywebsite:https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi277.

Mayhew,P.(2003).Counting the costs of crime in Australia(TrendsandIssuesinCrimeandCriminalJusticeNo.247).Retrieved10March2020fromAustralianInstituteofCriminologywebsite:https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi247

McGarrell,E.F.&Hipple,N.K.(2007).FamilyGroupConferencingandre-offendingamongfirst-timejuvenileoffenders:TheIndianapolisexperiment.Justice Quarterly,24,221-246.

Potas,I.,Smart,J.,Brignell,G.,Thomas,B.,&Lawrie,R.(2003).Circle Sentencing in New South Wales: A review and evaluation.Retrieved10March2020fromJudicialCommissionofNewSouthWaleswebsite:https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/research-monograph-22.pdf

Poynton,S.(2013).Rates of recidivism among offenders referred to Forum Sentencing(CrimeandJusticeBulletinNo.172).Retrieved10March2020fromNSWBureauofCrimeStatisticsandResearchwebsite:https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb172.pdf

ProductivityCommission.(2018).Report on Government Services 2018.Retrieved10August2019fromhttps://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/justice/corrective-services/rogs-2018-partc-chapter8.pdf



Rahman,S.(2019).The marginal effect of bail decisions on imprisonment, failure to appear, and crime (Crime andJusticeBulletinNo.224).Retrieved10March2020fromNSWBureauofCrimeStatisticsandResearchwebsite:https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/2019-Report-Bail-decisions-on-imprisonment-CJB224.pdf

Shapland,J.,Atkinson,A.,Atkinson,H.,Chapman,B.,Dignan,J.,Howes,M.,Johnstone,J.,Robinson,G.,&Sorsby,A.(2007).Restorative justice: The views of victims and offenders. The third report from the evaluation of three schemes.London:MinistryofJustice.

Smith,N.,&Weatherburn,D.(2012).Youth justice conferences verses Children’s Court: A comparison of re-offending.(CrimeandJusticeBulletinNo.160).Retrieved10March2020fromNSWBureauofCrimeStatisticsandResearchwebsite:https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb160.pdf

Strang,H.,Sherman,L.,Angel,C.M.,Woods,D.J.,Bennett,S.,Newbury-Birch,D.,&Inkpen,N.(2006).Victimevaluationsofface-to-facerestorativejusticeconferences:Aquasi-experimentalanalysis. Journal of Social Issues, 62(2),281–306.

Strang,H.,Sherman,L.,Mayo-Wilson.E.,Woods,D.,&Ariel,B.(2013).Restorativejusticeconferencing(RJC)usingface-to-facemeetingsofoffendersandvictims:Effectsonoffenderrecidivismandvictimsatisfaction. A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews,12.Retrieved10March2020fromhttps://restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/Campbell%20RJ%20review.pdf



Tabl

e A1

. Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

hose

ref

erre

d to

Cir

cle

Sent

enci

ng, b

y pa

rtic

ipat

ion

stat

us

Ever

yone

refe

rred

Refe

rred

but

tr

aditi

onal

ly s

ente

nced

Circ

le s

ente

nced

Diff

eren

ce

Obs

Mea

nSt

d. D

ev.

Obs

Mea

nSt

d. D

ev.

Obs

Mea

nSt

d. D

ev.

Estim

ate

Std.

Err

.(1

)(2

)(3

)(4

)(5

)(6

)(7

)(8

)(9

)(1

0)(1

1)

Pane

l A. O

utco

me

vari

able

s

Pris

on80

50.09

70.29

614

90.24

80.43

365

60.06

30.24

2-0.186

***

(0.037

)

Reoff

end

with

in 1

2 m

onth

s gi

ven

no

pris

on72

70.36

90.48

311

20.47

30.50

261

50.35

00.47

7-0.124

*(0.051

)

V

iole

nt o

ffen

ce72

70.15

70.36

411

20.17

00.37

761

50.15

40.36

2-0.015

(0.038

)

P

rope

rty

offen

ce72

70.07

20.25

811

20.08

00.27

361

50.07

00.25

5-0.010

(0.028

)

D

rug

offen

ce72

70.02

50.15

511

20.04

50.20

761

50.02

10.14

4-0.024

(0.020

)

W

eapo

n off

ence

727

0.00

70.08

311

20.01

80.13

361

50.00

50.07

0-0.013

(0.013

)

T

raffi

c off

ence

727

0.05

80.23

311

20.10

70.31

161

50.04

90.21

6-0.058

(0.031

)

Publ

ic o

rder

& m

isce

llane

ous

offen

ces

727

0.03

90.19

311

20.03

60.18

661

50.03

90.19

40.00

3(0.019

)

Off

ence

s ag

ains

t jus

tice

proc

edur

es72

70.01

20.11

111

20.01

80.13

361

50.01

10.10

6-0.006

(0.013

)

Day

s un

til fi

rst r

eoff

ence

60

762

9.46

870

2.36

712

550

3.43

255

6.60

448

266

2.15

473

2.43

115

8.72

2**

(59.84

2)

Pane

l B. C

ontr

ol v

aria

bles

Age

805

30.181

9.41

414

930

.362

9.10

865

630

.140

9.48

8-0.222

(0.832

)

Age

at fi

rst c

onta

ct w

ith ju

stic

e sy

stem

805

19.770

7.12

514

919

.906

7.39

365

619

.739

7.06

8-0.167

(0.664

)

Mal

e80

50.70

40.45

714

90.73

80.44

165

60.69

70.46

0-0.042

(0.040

)

SEIF

A Q

1 (L

owes

t SES

)80

50.71

30.45

314

90.67

10.47

165

60.72

30.44

80.05

1(0.042

)

SEIF

A Q

280

50.16

30.36

914

90.14

10.34

965

60.16

80.37

40.02

7(0.032

)

SEIF

A Q

380

50.09

30.29

114

90.11

40.31

965

60.08

80.28

4-0.026

(0.028

)

SEIF

A Q

4 (H

ighe

st S

ES)

805

0.00

50.07

014

90.00

00.00

065

60.00

60.07

80.00

6*(0.003

)

Mis

sing

SEI

FA80

50.02

60.15

914

90.07

40.26

265

60.01

50.12

3-0.059

**(0.022

)

Inne

r reg

iona

l80

50.47

70.50

014

90.40

30.49

265

60.49

40.50

00.09

1*(0.045

)

Maj

or c

ities

805

0.15

90.36

614

90.11

40.31

965

60.16

90.37

50.05

5(0.030

)

Out

er re

gion

al80

50.14

50.35

314

90.19

50.39

765

60.13

40.34

1-0.060

(0.035

)

Rem

ote

805

0.19

30.39

514

90.21

50.41

265

60.18

80.39

1-0.027

(0.037

)

Mis

sing

Are

a80

50.02

60.15

914

90.07

40.26

265

60.01

50.12

3-0.059

**(0.022

)

No.

con

curr

ent c

harg

es80

51.95

40.89

914

91.86

60.98

465

61.97

40.87

80.10

8(0.087

)

APPENDIX



Tabl

e A1

. Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

hose

ref

erre

d to

Cir

cle

Sent

enci

ng, b

y pa

rtic

ipat

ion

stat

us (c

ontin

ued)

Ever

yone

refe

rred

Refe

rred

but

tr

aditi

onal

ly s

ente

nced

Circ

le s

ente

nced

Diff

eren

ce

Obs

Mea

nSt

d. D

ev.

Obs

Mea

nSt

d. D

ev.

Obs

Mea

nSt

d. D

ev.

Estim

ate

Std.

Err

.(1

)(2

)(3

)(4

)(5

)(6

)(7

)(8

)(9

)(1

0)(1

1)

MSR

of p

rinci

pal o

ffen

ce80

568

.853

23.011

149

68.295

24.954

656

68.980

22.564

0.68

5(2.222

)

Bail

at fi

rst c

ourt

app

eara

nce

805

0.95

40.21

014

90.96

00.19

765

60.95

30.21

2-0.007

(0.018

)

Plea

d gu

ilty

805

0.84

80.35

914

90.78

50.41

265

60.86

30.34

40.07

8*(0.036

)

No

plea

ent

ered

805

0.10

70.30

914

90.14

10.34

965

60.09

90.29

9-0.042

(0.031

)

Plea

d no

t gui

lty80

50.04

50.20

714

90.07

40.26

265

60.03

80.19

2-0.036

(0.023

)

No.

prio

r cou

rt a

ppea

ranc

es (w

ith p

rove

n off

ence

s)80

57.14

26.69

814

98.45

08.10

765

66.84

56.30

5-1.605

*(0.707

)

No.

prio

r pris

on s

ente

nces

805

1.40

72.75

714

92.31

53.48

865

61.20

12.52

1-1.114

***

(0.302

)

Pane

l C. S

ente

ncin

g ou

tcom

es

Bond

with

sup

ervi

sion

805

0.30

60.46

114

90.27

50.44

865

60.31

30.46

40.03

7(0.041

)

Bond

with

out c

onvi

ctio

n w

ith s

uper

visi

on80

50.02

90.16

714

90.02

00.14

165

60.03

00.17

20.01

0(0.013

)

Bond

with

out c

onvi

ctio

n w

ithou

t su

perv

isio

n80

50.07

10.25

714

90.03

40.18

165

60.07

90.27

00.04

6*(0.018

)

Bond

with

out s

uper

visi

on80

50.07

70.26

714

90.05

40.22

665

60.08

20.27

50.02

9(0.021

)

Conv

ictio

n on

ly80

50.00

40.06

114

90.00

70.08

265

60.00

30.05

5-0.004

(0.007

)

Fine

805

0.03

70.19

014

90.08

10.27

365

60.02

70.16

3-0.053

*(0.023

)

Hom

e de

tent

ion

805

0.00

10.03

514

90.00

00.00

065

60.00

20.03

90.00

2(0.002

)

Impr

ison

men

t80

50.09

70.29

614

90.24

80.43

365

60.06

30.24

2-0.186

***

(0.037

)

No

conv

ictio

n re

cord

ed80

50.00

60.07

914

90.00

00.00

065

60.00

80.08

70.00

8*(0.003

)

No

pena

lty80

50.02

10.14

414

90.05

40.22

665

60.01

40.11

6-0.040

*(0.019

)

Oth

er p

enal

ties

805

0.00

90.09

314

90.00

70.08

265

60.00

90.09

50.00

2(0.008

)

Inte

nsiv

e Co

rrec

tion

Ord

er80

50.01

10.10

514

90.02

00.14

165

60.00

90.09

5-0.011

(0.012

)

Com

mun

ity S

ervi

ce O

rder

805

0.10

80.31

114

90.08

10.27

365

60.11

40.31

80.03

4(0.026

)

Susp

ende

d se

nten

ce w

ith s

uper

visi

on80

50.18

40.38

814

90.08

10.27

365

60.20

70.40

60.12

7***

(0.027

)

Susp

ende

d se

nten

ce w

ithou

t sup

ervi

sion

805

0.04

00.19

514

90.04

00.19

765

60.04

00.19

5-0.001

(0.018

)

Note.N=o

bservatio

ns,rob

uststand

arderrorsinparentheses,p<.00

1***,p<.01

**,p<.05

*.



Tabl

e A2

. Rob

ustn

ess

chec

ks

(1

)(2

)(3

)(4

)(5

)(6

)(7

)(8

)(9

)(1

0)

Perf

ect m

atch

esAl

l per

iods

All c

ourt

sFu

ll sa

mpl

eCo

urt F

ERo

lling

Prac

tical

ITT

Reoff

endi

ng

cuto

ffPS

M

Pane

l A. P

riso

n-0.103

***

-0.092

***

-0.098

***

-0.097

***

-0.100

***

-0.074

***

-0.087

***

-0.090

***

-0.093

***

-0.113

***

(0.011

)(0.009

)(0.009

)(0.009

)(0.009

)(0.019

)(0.011

)(0.009

)(0.009

)(0.018

)

Obs

erva

tions

92,613

102,29

211

6,08

112

6,93

712

6,83

13,70

252

,219

92,762

91,958

1,31

0

Pseu

do R

20.38

10.38

40.38

30.38

60.40

60.42

10.35

50.38

10.38

1

AUC

0.89

70.89

90.89

80.89

90.90

60.91

30.88

60.89

70.89

7

Pane

l B. R

eoff

endi

ng-0.051

*-0.039

*-0.034

-0.034

-0.022

-0.016

-0.049

*-0.035

-0.039

*-0.037

(0.020

)(0.018

)(0.018

)(0.018

)(0.019

)(0.040

)(0.020

)(0.018

)(0.018

)(0.027

)

Obs

erva

tions

76,041

84,103

94,467

103,43

910

3,43

43,33

543

,366

76,171

75,526

1,23

0

Pseu

do R

20.08

220.08

180.08

050.08

020.08

410.11

50.08

110.08

220.08

22

AUC

0.69

40.69

40.69

20.69

20.69

60.72

70.69

30.69

40.69

4

Pane

l C.

Days

unt

il ne

xt o

ffen

ce70

.331

*66

.501

*56

.500

*59

.192

*44

.453

113.52

192

.165

**61

.055

*61

.866

*63

.402

*

(31.26

0)(29.04

7)(27.73

4)(28.59

5)(28.57

6)(89.38

9)(33.94

7)(27.67

1)(28.21

8)(28.17

2)

Obs

erva

tions

54,474

60,750

67,489

74,433

74,430

2,68

030

,193

54,581

54,359

896

Pseu

do R

20.01

30.01

20.01

30.01

30.01

30.00

10.01

20.01

30.01

2

Cont

rols

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

Tim

e FE

YY

YY

YY

YY

YN

Cour

t FE

NN

NN

YN

NN

NN

Note.N=observatio

ns,AUC=

AreaUnd

erth

ereceiverope

ratin

gcharacteristicCurve,FE=FixedEff

ects.Amon

goff

ende

rsund

ergoingCS

,colum

n1restrictsth

eestim

ationsampletooffe

nderswith

identicalsentencingdatesinbothRO

Dand

theAS

U

database.Colum

n2allowsoff

ende

rsparticipatinginTSinm

onth-yearswith

outC

Stobeinclud

edinth

eestim

ationsample.Colum

n3allowsoff

ende

rsparticipatinginTSincou

rtswith

CSavailabletobeinclud

edinth

eestim

ationsample.Colum

n4

impo

sesno

sam

plerestrictio

nregardingcourtsorm

onth-years.Colum

n5em

ployscourtFEs.Colum

n6lim

itsth

eestim

ationsampletocou

rtsthatwilleventuallyhaveCS

,and

thencom

paresoff

ende

rsund

ergoingCS

tooffe

ndersun

dergoingTSin

courtsyetto

introd

uceCS

.Colum

n7lim

itsth

eestim

ationsampletooffe

ndersthatpleadguiltyand

weregrantedbailatth

eirfi

rstcou

rtapp

earance.Colum

n8repo

rtsIntention-to-treate

stimates.Colum

n9lim

itsth

eestim

ationsampletooffe

nders

with

abaselinesentencingdateon

orb

efore31

July201

8.Colum

n10

repo

rtsthediffe

rence-in-m

eansbetweenparticipantsund

ergoingCS

and

am

atched

group

ofcon

trols.Theseoffe

nderswerematched

usingprope

nsityscorem

atchingon

theset

ofcon

trolvariablesdescribed

inPanelBofTable3,stand

arderrorsinparentheses,***p<.00

1,**p<

.01,*p<.05

.



Table A3. Descriptive statistics for reoffending variables

Full sample Traditionally sentenced Circle sentenced Difference

N Mean Std. Dev.

N Mean Std. Dev.

N Mean Std. Dev.

Estimate Std. Err.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)

Reoffend within 12 months for:

Violent offence 76,303 0.113 0.316 75,688 0.112 0.316 615 0.154 0.362 0.042** -0.015

Property offence 76,303 0.100 0.300 75,688 0.100 0.300 615 0.070 0.255 -0.030** -0.010

Drug offence 76,303 0.043 0.202 75,688 0.043 0.202 615 0.021 0.144 -0.022*** -0.006

Weapon offence 76,303 0.007 0.084 75,688 0.007 0.085 615 0.005 0.070 -0.002 -0.003

Traffic offence 76,303 0.079 0.270 75,688 0.079 0.270 615 0.049 0.216 -0.031*** -0.009

Public order & miscellaneous offences

76,303 0.038 0.191 75,688 0.038 0.191 615 0.039 0.194 0.001 -0.008

Offences against justice procedures

76,303 0.025 0.156 75,688 0.025 0.156 615 0.011 0.106 -0.014** -0.004

Reoffend within 12 months (selected crime)

76,303 0.071 0.257 75,688 0.071 0.257 615 0.042 0.201 -0.029*** (0.008)

Selected violent crime 76,303 0.005 0.070 75,688 0.005 0.070 615 0.008 0.090 0.003 (0.004)

Selected property crime

76,303 0.066 0.249 75,688 0.066 0.249 615 0.034 0.182 -0.032*** (0.007)

Note.N=observations,robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,p<.001***,p<.01**,p<.05*.



Table A4. Raw maximum likelihood coefficients

(1) (2) (3)

Prison Reoffend Days

Circle Sentencing -1.348*** -0.183* 0.113*

(0.182) (0.089) (0.047)

SEIFA Q2 -0.083** 0.000 -0.009

(0.030) (0.020) (0.012)

SEIFA Q3 -0.202*** -0.028 -0.022

(0.035) (0.023) (0.014)

SEIFA Q4 -0.220*** -0.018 -0.046*

(0.057) (0.036) (0.022)

Missing SEIFA 0.001 -0.164 0.227

(0.531) (0.272) (0.171)

Major cities 0.066* 0.135*** -0.069***

(0.029) (0.019) (0.011)

Outer regional -0.124*** -0.043 -0.005

(0.037) (0.024) (0.014)

Remote -0.421*** -0.033 -0.000

(0.071) (0.041) (0.022)

Missing Area 1.754*** -0.264 -0.065

(0.532) (0.274) (0.172)

Age 0.010*** -0.031*** 0.016***

(0.003) (0.002) (0.001)

Age at first contact with justice system -0.027*** -0.011*** -0.004***

(0.003) (0.002) (0.001)

Male 0.420*** 0.118*** -0.051***

(0.028) (0.017) (0.010)

No. concurrent charges 1.053*** 0.137*** -0.047***

(0.013) (0.009) (0.005)

MSR of principal offence -0.025*** 0.004*** -0.002***

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

Bail at first court appearance -1.171*** -0.250*** 0.079***

(0.037) (0.039) (0.021)

No plea entered -0.876*** 0.327*** -0.144***

(0.030) (0.019) (0.011)

Plead not guilty -0.401*** 0.172*** -0.069***

(0.039) (0.025) (0.014)

No. prior court appearances (with proven offences) 0.041*** 0.081*** -0.030***

(0.003) (0.002) (0.001)

No. prior prison sentences 0.113*** 0.016*** -0.010***

(0.005) (0.005) (0.003)

Constant -1.353*** -0.211* 6.640***

(0.154) (0.105) (0.066)

Observations 92,746 76,159 54,569

Note.Columns1and2reporttherawcoefficientsfromaLogisticregression.Column3reportstherawcoefficientsfromaZero-TruncatedNegativeBinomialregres-sion.Robuststandarderrorsinparentheses,p<.001***,p<.01**,p<.05*.

NSW BUREAU OF CRIME STATISTICS AND RESEARCH - LEVEL 1, HENRY DEANE BUILDING, 20 LEE STREET, SYDNEY 2000

[email protected]•www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au•Ph:(02)83461100•Fax:(02)83461298ISSN2204-5538(Online)•ISBN978-1-925343-75-5

©StateofNewSouthWalesthroughtheDepartmentofCommunitiesandJustice2020.Youmaycopy,distribute,display,downloadandotherwisefreelydealwiththisworkforanypurpose,providedthatyouattributetheDepartmentofJusticeastheowner.However,youmustobtainpermissionifyouwishto(a)chargeothersforaccesstothework(otherthanatcost),(b)includetheworkinadvertisingoraproductforsale,or(c)modifythework.