Key messages
- On an average day in 2020–21, there were 2,141 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people under youth justice supervision, including 1,697 aged 10–17.
- Indigenous young people were 16 times as likely as non-Indigenous young people to be under supervision (117 compared with 7.2 per 10,000 population aged 10–17).
- Indigenous young people represented 46% of all young people under youth justice supervision.
- 83% (1,770) of Indigenous young people under youth justice supervision were under community-based supervision, and 18% (384) were in secure detention facilities.
- Between 2011–12 and 2020–21, the rate of youth justice supervision for Indigenous young people aged 10–17 declined by 29% (from 186 to 117 per 10,000 population), and the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people narrowed by 28% (based on rate difference).
- Between 2011–12 and 2020–21, there was a 30% decline in community supervision and a 25% decline in detention for Indigenous young people aged 10–17.
- Between 2011–12 and 2020–21, the rate of Indigenous young people aged 10–17 in detention declined in New South Wales and Western Australia (by 50% and 45%, respectively), increased in Queensland (by 31%) and did not change significantly in Victoria or South Australia.
- On 30 June 2021, there were 13,039 Indigenous prisoners in Australia, representing 2.4% of the Indigenous adult population.
- Between 2006 and 2021, there was an increase of 70% in the age-standardised imprisonment rate for Indigenous adults (from 1,333 to 2,223 per 100,000 population), compared with an increase of 35% for non-Indigenous adults (from 132 to 164 per 100,000 population).
- The absolute gap (rate difference) in imprisonment rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous adults widened from 1,201 to 2,059 per 100,000 population, based on age-standardised rates. The relative difference in adult imprisonment rates also increased over the period, from 10 times as high for Indigenous Australians as non-Indigenous Australians in 2006 to 14 times as high in 2021 (rate ratio of 10.1 to 13.5).
- In 2018, 80% of Indigenous prison entrants said they were current smokers, compared with 73% for non-Indigenous prison entrants.
- Indigenous prison entrants were almost twice as likely as non-Indigenous entrants to be rated as being at high risk of alcohol-related harm (46% compared with 26%), and had a higher prevalence of hepatitis B antibody (32% compared with 8% of non-Indigenous entrants).
- Indigenous prison dischargees were less likely to report having a Medicare card available on release (56%) compared with non-Indigenous dischargees (71%).
- An evaluation of the Tiwi youth diversion program by the Tiwi Islands Youth Development and Diversion Unit (Northern Territory) found it was effective in reducing contact with the criminal justice system and that participants had lower rates of contact with police in the year following the program.
- Offenders who participated in Circle Sentencing were 52% less likely to be incarcerated and 9.6% less likely to reoffend than offenders who never participated in Circle Sentencing.
- Research suggests promising practices of Indigenous youth justice programs include the importance of having adequately resourced, culturally appropriate and competent services; effective collaboration; addressing multiple and complex needs of offenders; and family engagement and parental training.
Why is it important?
The majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have never been incarcerated, and in 2014–15, most had not been arrested within the last 5 years (ABS 2016). However, Indigenous Australians experience contact with the criminal justice system—as both offenders and victims—at much higher rates than non-Indigenous Australians (AIHW 2021a, 2021b; Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 1991; SCRGSP 2020; Senate Community Affairs References Committee 2010).
Imprisonment compounds existing social and economic disadvantage and affects family, children, and the broader community with intergenerational effects. This cycle can lead to a normalisation of incarceration where prison is no longer a deterrent but instead a fact of life (Brown 2010). Imprisonment also has social and health effects following release, such as adverse employment, financial, housing, mental or other health consequences (Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 2013; Weatherburn 2014; Woodward 2003). Indigenous offenders are more likely than non-Indigenous offenders to have additional contact with the justice system, and Indigenous prisoners are more likely to have served a prior prison sentence (Allard 2010).
Weatherburn (2014) identified four key risk factors for Indigenous offending: exposure to child neglect (see measure 2.12 Child protection); school attendance and performance (see measure 2.04 Literacy and numeracy); unemployment (see measure 2.07 Employment); and drug and alcohol abuse (see measures 2.16 Risky alcohol consumption and 2.17 Drug and other substance use including inhalants).
The effects of these risk factors, along with child removals, poverty, higher rates of stressful life events, psychological distress, and mental health issues, are linked to the higher rates of contact with the criminal justice system (Australian Medical Association 2015; McCausland et al. 2017; Shepherd et al. 2017).
Preventing Indigenous people’s engagement in crime and subsequent contact with the criminal justice system has been identified as a critical measure to reduce this over-representation. A key element of successful prevention and early intervention programs is to build a positive long-term relationship with family and community as well as with service providers. This highlights the important principle of self-determination in prevention program design and delivery. Indigenous community ownership, design and control can ensure services address the unique needs of communities and foster community buy-in (Stringfellow et al. 2022).
In July 2020, the National Agreement on Closing the Gap (the National Agreement) identified the importance of addressing the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (young people and adults) in the criminal justice system. To support effort on these outcomes the National Agreement specifically outlines the following targets to direct policy attention and monitor progress:
- Target 10—By 2031, reduce the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults held in incarceration by at least 15 per cent
- Target 11—By 2031, reduce the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people (10-17 years) in detention by at least 30 per cent.
This HPF measure includes data related to these targets and some of the supporting indicators, such as the proportion of young people entering the youth justice system aged 10–13; the unsentenced detention rates for Indigenous young people; and for Indigenous adults, the proportion of prisoners previously incarcerated. For more information on the Closing the Gap targets, see the Closing the Gap Information Repository.
Findings
What does the data tell us about youth justice supervision?
The youth justice system is the set of processes and practices for managing children and young people who have committed or allegedly committed an offence when aged 10–17. People aged 18 and over may also be supervised in the youth justice system if they were 18 or over when they were apprehended for a crime (allegedly) committed when they were 17 or younger; if their existing supervision continues once they turn 18; or if a court determines that they should be detained in a youth justice facility due to their vulnerability or immaturity (reasons vary depending on the state or territory) (AIHW 2020).
In 2020–21, a total of 4,092 Indigenous young people were under youth justice supervision at some time during the year, with 86% (3,501) of these young people aged 10–17 and 14% (591) aged 18 and over (AIHW 2021b).
On an average day in 2020–21:
- 2,141 Indigenous young people were under youth justice supervision. This included 1,697 Indigenous young people aged 10–17, with the remaining 444 aged 18 and over.
- Indigenous young people represented 46% of all young people under youth justice supervision.
- 79% of Indigenous young people under youth justice supervision were male and 21% were female.
- 5.6% of Indigenous young people under youth justice supervision were aged 10–13, compared with 1.8% of non-Indigenous young people (AIHW 2021b).
Type of supervision
Supervision may take place while young people are unsentenced or sentenced and, in each case, can take place in the community or a secure detention facility. Most young people under youth justice supervision are supervised in the community rather than in detention (AIHW 2021b).
On an average day in 2020–21, 83% of Indigenous young people under youth justice supervision were under community-based supervision (1,770 young people), and 18% were in secure detention facilities (384). (Some were supervised in both the community and detention on the same day, and so the sum of the percentages exceeds 100%).
On an average day, Indigenous young people represented:
- 45% of all young people under community-based supervision (1,770 of 3,934 young people), and 48% of young people aged 10–17 under community supervision (1,373 of 2,842)
- 49% of the young people in secure detention facilities (384 of 787), and 53% of young people aged 10–17 in secure detention facilities (337 of 640) (AIHW 2021b).
During the year 2020–21, there were 3,659 Indigenous young people under community-based supervision. Of these, 85% (3,098) were aged 10–17, a higher proportion than non-Indigenous young people aged 10–17 (76%). About three-quarters (77% or 2,826) of Indigenous young people under community-based supervision were males.
There were 1,933 Indigenous young people in detention at some time during 2020–21. Of these, 95% (1,836) were aged 10–17, a higher proportion than non-Indigenous young people aged 10–17 (92%). Of Indigenous young people in detention during the year, 81% were males.
Youth justice supervision and child protection
Of Indigenous young people under youth justice supervision during 2020–21, almost 2 in 3 (64) had an interaction with the child protection system in the 5 years from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2021 (or 2,600 of 4,055 Indigenous young people) (AIHW 2022). This was higher than the proportion among non-Indigenous young people under youth justice supervision (46%, or 2,292 of 4,975 non-Indigenous young people). Note that these statistics are based on data linkage, and as a result of the linkage process, the total counts of young people in the youth justice system in these data are slightly less than that cited elsewhere in the measure (in part due to young people being linked across states and territories).
Multiple periods of supervision and recidivism
For young people who completed a period of supervision during 2020–21, a higher proportion of Indigenous young people had completed multiple periods of supervision than non-Indigenous young people (20% and 14%, respectively).
The average length of time under supervision was 10 days longer for Indigenous young people (191 days) than non-Indigenous young people (181 days) (AIHW 2021b).
Indigenous young people who were released from sentenced community-based supervision during 2018–19 were more likely than non‑Indigenous young people to return to sentenced youth justice supervision within 12 months, including:
- 63% of Indigenous males, compared with 50% of non-Indigenous males.
- 51% of Indigenous females, compared with 37% of non-Indigenous females.
This analysis is limited to those aged 10–16 (rather than 10–17) to ensure that those who returned to sentenced supervision within 12 months of release were aged under 17 at the time of offence (the upper age limit of the youth justice system).
Among young people released from detention, the rate of returning to sentenced youth justice supervision within 12 months was similar for Indigenous and non‑Indigenous males (both 81%), but higher for Indigenous females compared with non-Indigenous females (78% and 64%) (Table D2.11.6, Figure 2.11.1).
Figure 2.11.1: Proportion of young people aged 10–16 years released from sentenced supervision in 2018–19 who returned to sentenced supervision within 12 months, by Indigenous status, sex and type of sentenced supervision
Note: Calculations are based on the number of young people aged 10–16 at the time of release from sentenced supervision (during 2018–19), to ensure that those who returned to sentenced supervision within 12 months of release were aged up to 17 and therefore still in the youth justice system (during 2018–19 and/or 2019–20).
Source: Table D2.11.6. AIHW Youth Justice National Minimum Dataset (YJ NMDS).
Across states and territories, for Indigenous young people, Queensland had the highest rate of returning to sentenced supervision within 12 months (65%), and the lowest rate of return was in Victoria (51%) (Table D2.11.22).
Rates of youth justice supervision
Nationally, on an average day in 2020–21, the rate of youth justice supervision among Indigenous young people aged 10–17 was 16 times the rate for non-Indigenous young people (117 compared with 7.2 per 10,000 population) (Table D2.11.1).
Across states and territories, for Indigenous young people aged 10–17 on an average day in 2020–21, the rate of supervision across jurisdictions ranged between 51 per 10,000 population (in Tasmania) and 169 (in Queensland) (Table D2.11.1, Figure 2.11.2). Note that the rate of youth justice supervision in states and territories can be impacted by differences in state-based legislation, policies and practices, including the available types of supervised orders and options for diversion.
Across all jurisdictions, the rate of supervision on an average day was higher for Indigenous than non-Indigenous young people. The largest relative difference was in Queensland and Western Australia where the rates for Indigenous young people were 21 times the rates for non-Indigenous young people (Table D2.11.1).
Figure 2.11.2: Rate of supervision of young people aged 10–17 years on an average day, by Indigenous status and state and territory, 2020–21
Rates of community supervision
Nationally, on an average day in 2020–21, there were 1,770 Indigenous young people under community supervision, with 78% aged 10–17 (1,373 young people) (AIHW 2021b). The rate of community supervision for Indigenous Australians aged 10–17 nationally was 94 young people under community supervision per 10,000 population, 16 times the rate for non-Indigenous young people (6 per 10,000 population) (Table D2.11.30).
Across jurisdictions, the rate of community supervision for Indigenous young people ranged between 43 per 10,000 population (in the Northern Territory) and 138 per 10,000 population (in Queensland). Across states and territories, the rate of community supervision among Indigenous young people ranged between 4.4 times as high as for non-Indigenous youth (in Tasmania) to 21 times as high (in Queensland).
Rates of youth detention
On an average day in 2020–21, there were 337 Indigenous and 300 non-Indigenous young people aged 10–17 in detention. Expressed as a population rate, 23 young people aged 10–17 were in detention per 10,000 population for Indigenous Australians, compared with 1.3 per 10,000 population for non-Indigenous young people aged 10–17. That is, Indigenous young people aged 10–17 were 18 times as likely as non-Indigenous young people in the same age group to be in detention (Table D2.11.29).
Change over time in youth justice
To describe trends in youth justice, linear regression has been used to calculate the per cent change over time. This means that information from all years of the specified time period are used, rather than only the first and last points in the series (see ‘Statistical terms and methods’).
Between 2011–12 and 2020–21, the rate of supervision for Indigenous young people aged 10–17 declined from 186 to 117 per 10,000 population. Based on linear regression, this corresponded to a decline of 29% in the rate of supervision for Indigenous young people, and the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people narrowed by 28% (based on rate difference) (Table D2.11.1, Figure 2.11.2).
The reduction in the gap reflects a larger absolute reduction in the rate for Indigenous young people than for non-Indigenous young people (annual decline of 6.0 compared with 0.6 young people in supervision per 10,000 population) (Figure 2.11.3).
Figure 2.11.3: National rate of supervision of young people aged 10–17 years on an average day, by Indigenous status, 2011–12 to 2020–21
Between 2011–12 and 2020–21, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory had the largest declines in youth justice supervision for Indigenous young people, with rates for Indigenous young people aged 10–17 declining by 52% (from 362 to 153 per 10,000 population) and 51% (from 233 to 75 per 10,000) in these jurisdictions, respectively. The rate for New South Wales (39%), Victoria (41%) and South Australia (37%) also declined, while the rate for Queensland and Tasmania did not change significantly over the same period. Time trend information for the Northern Territory was only available from 2012–13, however there was no statistically significant change between 2012–13 and 2020–21. For non-Indigenous young people, between 2011–12 and 2020–21 (excluding the Northern Territory), the rates declined in all jurisdictions, with reductions ranging between 31% (in Queensland) and 67% (in South Australia) (Table D2.11.1).
Trends in community supervision
From 2011–12 to 2020–21, the rate of community supervision among Indigenous young people aged 10–17 declined from 153 per 10,000 population to 94 per 10,000 population, while the rate for non-Indigenous young people declined from 12 to 6 per 10,000 population. Over the same period, the absolute gap in rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people declined from 140 to 88 per 10,000 population (Table D2.11.30).
Based on linear regression, the rate of community supervision among Indigenous young people aged 10–17 declined by 30%, while the gap in rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people declined by 28%. The reduction in the gap reflects a larger absolute reduction in the rate for Indigenous young people than for non-Indigenous young people (annual decline of 5.1 compared with 0.6 young people in supervision per 10,000 population) (Table D2.11.30).
Among the jurisdictions, the largest statistically significant declines in community supervision rates for Indigenous young people over this period were in Western Australia (by 54%), followed by Australian Capital Territory (52%), Victoria (48%), South Australia (37%) and New South Wales (36%). There was no significant change in the rate for Queensland or Tasmania. Time trend information for the Northern Territory was only available from 2012–13, however there was no statistically significant change between 2012–13 and 2020–21 (Table D2.11.30).
Trends in youth detention
Nationally, in the decade from 2011–12 to 2020–21, the rate of Indigenous young people aged 10–17 in detention declined from 34 to 23 per 10,000 population, while the rate for non-Indigenous young people remained similar (from 1.6 to 1.3 per 10,000) and the gap declined from 32 to 22 per 10,000). Based on linear regression, the rate of Indigenous young people aged 10–17 in detention declined by 25% nationally between 2011–12 to 2020–21, with the gap declining by 26% (Table D2.11.29, Figure 2.11.4).
Across the states and territories, in the decade between 2011–12 to 2020–21, the rate of Indigenous young people aged 10–17 in detention:
- declined in New South Wales and Western Australia (by 50% and 45% respectively, based on linear regression)
- increased in Queensland (by 31%).
- did not change significantly in Victoria or South Australia.
Data for the Northern Territory were not available for the full decade, but the rate was lower in 2020–21 and 2019–20 (27 and 21 per 10,000 population, respectively) than in earlier years from 2012–13 to 2018–19 (ranging between 31 and 43 per 10,000 population). Trend analysis of rates was not possible for Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory due to small numbers.
Looking separately at sentenced and unsentenced detention among Indigenous young people aged 10–17, between 2011–12 and 2020–21, the rate of sentenced detention declined from 15 to 5.3 per 10,000 population nationally, while there was no clear trend for unsentenced detention.
Considering the 5 jurisdictions where trend analysis was possible over the decade to 2020–21:
- both sentenced and unsentenced detention declined in New South Wales (58% and 45%, respectively).
- in Queensland, the rate of sentenced detention declined by 44% while the rate of unsentenced detention increased by 59%.
- in Western Australia, the rate of sentenced detention declined by 64%, while there was no significant change in the rate for unsentenced detention (Table D2.11.29).
In the Northern Territory (for which data were available from 2012–13), the rate of sentenced detention was lower in 2020–21 and 2019–20 (9 and 11 per 10,000 population, respectively) than in earlier years from 2012–13 to 2018–19 (ranging between 16 and 27 per 10,000), with no clear trend in unsentenced detention.
Figure 2.11.4: National detention rate of young people aged 10–17 years on an average day and changes in the gap, by Indigenous status, 2011–12 to 2020–21
What does the data tell us about adult imprisonment?
Adult prisoners by Indigenous status and sex
On 30 June 2021, there were 13,039 Indigenous prisoners in Australia, based on information from the National Prisoner Census – equivalent to 2.4% of the Indigenous adult population (Table D2.11.7). Among Indigenous prisoners, 9 in 10 (90% or 11,781) were males and 2 in 5 (40% or 5,271) were aged 25-34.
As at June 2021, 30% of all prisoners were Indigenous. The proportion of prisoners who were Indigenous was higher among females (39% of whom were Indigenous) than males (30%) (Table D2.11.8). Over 1 in 3 (36%) of Indigenous prisoners (4,725) were unsentenced, a similar proportion to non-Indigenous prisoners (35% or 10,350) (Table D2.11.9).
Imprisonment rates by Indigenous status
As at June 2021, Indigenous adults were imprisoned at 14 times the rate of non-Indigenous adults, after adjusting for differences in the age structure between the two populations (age-standardised rate of 2,223 per 100,000 population, compared with 164 per 100,000 for non-Indigenous adults (Table D2.11.8).
Imprisonment rates by jurisdiction
By state and territory, the highest rate of imprisonment of Indigenous adults as at 30 June 2021 was in Western Australia (3,858 per 100,000 population), followed by the Northern Territory (2,919 per 100,000). The lowest imprisonment rate of Indigenous adults was in Tasmania (794 per 100,000) (Table D2.11.8, Figure 2.11.5).
Figure 2.11.5: Imprisonment rate of Indigenous adults, by state and territory, 30 June 2021
Recidivism, sentence length and nature of offences
As at June 2021, Indigenous prisoners were more likely than non-Indigenous prisoners to have had a prior adult imprisonment sentence (78% compared with 52%) (Table D2.11.9).
The median aggregate sentence was lower for Indigenous prisoners (2.5 years) than for non-Indigenous prisoners (4.2 years). Three-quarters (73%) of sentences for Indigenous prisoners were under 5 years, compared with 52% for non-Indigenous prisoners (ABS 2021) (Table 26).
As at 30 June 2021, among Indigenous prisoners, 37% of Indigenous prisoners were in prison due to ‘acts intended to cause injury’, 12% for ‘unlawful entry or intent/burglary, break and enter’, 9% for ‘robbery, extortion and related offences’, and 9% for ‘sexual assault and related offences’ (Table D2.11.21).
Indigenous prisoners were more likely than non-Indigenous prisoners to have ‘acts intended to cause injury’ as their most serious charge (36% compared with 18%) (Table D2.11.21). The number of Indigenous prisoners with ‘acts intended to cause injury’ as their most serious charge increased from 2,499 (33%) in 2010 to 4,842 (37%) in 2021 (Table D2.11.20). As at 30 June 2021, a smaller proportion of Indigenous than non-Indigenous prisoners were in prison for illicit drug offences (4% compared with 20%, respectively) and homicide (5% compared with 9%, respectively). The proportion of prisoners who had ‘traffic and vehicle regulatory offences’ as their most serious charge were similar for the two populations (1.1% for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous prisoners) (Table D2.11.20).
Findings from the 2014–15 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey
In 2014–15, an estimated 22% of Indigenous males aged 35 and over had been incarcerated at some time in their life, based on reported information from the 2014–15 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey (Social Survey). Other findings from the 2014–15 Social Survey, based on reported information, included:
- An estimated 48% of Indigenous males aged 15 and over and 23% of Indigenous females aged 15 and over had been formally charged by the police at some time in their life.
- 20% of Indigenous males aged 15 and over and 9.2% of Indigenous females aged 15 and over had been arrested in the past 5 years.
- 5.3% of Indigenous males aged 15 and over and 1.1% of Indigenous females aged 15 and over had been incarcerated in the past 5 years (ABS 2016) (Table 15.3).
Change over time in adult imprisonment
To describe trends in adult imprisonment, linear regression has been used to calculate the per cent change over time. This means that information from all years of the specified time period are used, rather than only the first and last points in the series (see ‘Statistical terms and methods’).
In the decade between 2012 and 2021, there was a 29% increase in the rate of imprisonment for Indigenous adults (based on crude rates). The age-standardised imprisonment rate for Indigenous Australians increased by 40% over the decade to 2021, compared with 28% for non-Indigenous Australians. The age-standardised rates adjust for changes in the age-structure of the populations over time, and for differences in the age-structures of the two populations. The absolute gap (rate difference) in imprisonment rate between Indigenous and non-Indigenous adults increased from 1,444 to 2,059 per 100,000 population between 2012 and 2021, and the relative difference increased from 12 times as high for Indigenous Australians to 14 times as high (from a rate ratio of 12.1 to 13.5).
Over a longer period between 2006 and 2021, based on age-standardised rates, there was an increase of 70% in the imprisonment rate for Indigenous adults (from 1,333 to 2,223 per 100,000 population), compared with an increase of 35% for non-Indigenous adults (from 132 to 164 per 100,000 population). The absolute gap (rate difference) in imprisonment rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous adults widened from 1,201 to 2,059 per 100,000 population (Table D2.11.12, Figure 2.11.6). The relative difference in adult imprisonment rates also increased over the period, from 10 times as high for Indigenous Australians as non-Indigenous Australians in 2006 to 14 times as high in 2021 (rate ratio of 10.1 to 13.5).
Figure 2.11.6: Age-standardised national adult imprisonment rate, by Indigenous status, 2006 to 2021
Comparing rates between states and territories, the age-standardised rates of imprisonment for Indigenous adults increased in all jurisdictions between 2012 and 2021. The largest percentage increases were in Tasmania (127%, from an age-standardised rate of 409 to 776 per 100,000 population), followed by Victoria (85%, from 1,054 to 1,816 per 100,000 population), while the smallest increase was in the Northern Territory (9.2%, from 2,228 to 2,557 per 100,000 population) (Table D2.11.12).
What does the data tell us about other factors in the criminal justice system?
Prisoner health and determinants
The National Prisoner Health Data Collection provides information on the health and wellbeing of people in prison. People in prison have significant and complex health needs, and improving their health and wellbeing while in prison, and maintaining those improvements after prison, benefits the entire community.
The National Prisoner Health survey, last conducted in 2018, involved 803 prison entrants, including 308 Indigenous prison entrants (AIHW 2019).
Of the survey participants, 12% of the Indigenous prison entrants had completed Year 12 at school, compared with 24% of the non-Indigenous entrants (excluding New South Wales data) (Table D2.11.23). Indigenous prison entrants were more likely than non-Indigenous entrants to have been unemployed in the 30 days prior to imprisonment (64% compared with 48%, respectively) (Table D2.11.24). Indigenous entrants were 3 times as likely as non-Indigenous entrants to have had a parent or carer imprisoned (31% compared with 11%, respectively) (Table D2.11.26).
Three in four (75%) prison entrants said they were current smokers. Indigenous prison entrants (80%) were more likely than non-Indigenous entrants (73%) to be current smokers. The proportion of Indigenous prison entrants who smoked was higher than in the wider Indigenous population (43% of those aged 18 and over in 2018–19). Indigenous prison entrants (46%) were almost twice as likely as non-Indigenous entrants (26%) to be rated as being at high risk of alcohol-related harm (AIHW 2019).
In 2016, the National Prison Entrants Bloodborne Virus and Risk Behaviour Survey found a higher prevalence of hepatitis B antibody among Indigenous prison entrants than non-Indigenous prison entrants (32% compared with 8%, respectively) (see measure <1.12 HIV/AIDS, hepatitis and sexually transmissible infections>) (Table D2.11.28).
Indigenous prison dischargees were more likely to have visited the prison health clinic (97%) than non-Indigenous dischargees (88%); however, they were less likely to report having a Medicare card available on release (56%) compared with non-Indigenous dischargees (71%) (AIHW 2019).
Indigenous prison dischargees have the option to access the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation or Service (ACCHO) or Aboriginal Medical Service (AMS). Of the 127 Indigenous prison dischargees who completed the discharge form in 2018, 9% reported receiving treatment or consultation in prison from an ACCHO and/or an AMS (AIHW 2019).
Deaths in custody
In Australia, deaths that occur in prison, police custody and youth detention are monitored by the National Deaths in Custody Program managed by the Australian Institute of Criminology.
In 2020–21, there were 66 deaths in prison custody. Of these, 12 (or 18%) were deaths of Indigenous Australians. The death rate of Indigenous prisoners was 0.09 per 100 prisoners, lower than the previous year (0.11) and lower than the death rate of non-Indigenous prisoners of 0.18 per 100 prisoners.
There were 16 deaths in police custody and custody-related operations. Of these, three were deaths of Indigenous Australians, 13 were deaths of non-Indigenous Australians.
Deaths in prison custody have fluctuated over time. The death rates of Indigenous prisoners were consistently lower than the death rates of non-Indigenous prisoners between 2003–04 and 2020–21 (Doherty & Bricknell 2020).
What do research and evaluations tell us?
A great deal of research has been conducted on identifying risk factors and characteristics of Indigenous Australians who have had contact with the criminal justice system, highlighting the complex effects of entrenched social disadvantage and intergenerational trauma, spanning across the life course. Some research moves beyond this to identify potential ways forward to improve how the justice system treats Indigenous Australians at various points along the life course and the justice continuum. The Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse website is a useful resource that provides relevant Indigenous Justice information to help policy makers.
Indigenous Australians that have contact with the criminal justice system are more likely than their non-Indigenous counterparts to:
- have experienced family violence and sexual assault (Corrigan 2018)
- have mental illness or cognitive disability (Heffernan Edward et al. 2012; Korff 2016)
- have substance abuse issues (Australian Medical Association 2015; Weatherburn 2014);
- have worse health problems (Australian Medical Association 2015; Levy 2005), particularly for some specific diseases, such as hepatitis B (Butler T & Simpson 2017)
- have entered into the child protection system as children (Roettger et al. 2019)
- have earlier and more frequent criminal justice contact—including police contact and incarceration (Weatherburn 2014)
- be living in unstable housing or homeless (Weatherburn 2014)
- have hearing loss (Vanderpoll & Howard 2012)
- be unemployed (Woodward 2003)
- have learning difficulties and lower levels of educational attainment (Corrigan 2018)
- have had a parent or carer in prison while growing up (AIHW 2019).
The social and health effects of imprisonment on Indigenous Australians include (Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 2013; Weatherburn 2014):
- adverse employment and financial consequences (Woodward 2003)
- lack of positive male role-models in Indigenous society (Woodward 2003)
- prisoners taking health problems and problematic behaviours out into the community, for example hepatitis C, substance abuse, violence (Butler Tony & Milner 2003; Woodward 2003)
- challenges for continuity of health care following incarceration and release, for example for Hepatitis C, or for treatment involving pharmacotherapies and psychotropic medications (Krieg 2006)
- mental and other health problems for children who have a parent in prison custody (20% of Indigenous children have a parent in custody at some stage) (Levy 2005)
- among children whose parents offend there is an increased risk of antisocial behaviour and imprisonment, mental and physical health issues, substance use, academic difficulties, and social marginalisation or exclusion in offspring (Roettger et al. 2019).
Studies have found that structural and systemic factors can also contribute to the high rates of Indigenous offending, including laws, policies and practices that can unintentionally operate to the detriment of Indigenous Australians (Allard 2010; Blagg et al. 2005).
Imprisonment for Indigenous females is increasing faster than for Indigenous males and non-Indigenous males and females. In New South Wales, overall female incarceration rates climbed 33% between March 2013 and June 2019, with almost a third of them (32%) being Indigenous females. This was driven by a significant increase (66%) in the proportion of women on remand, rather than a growth in crime (Phelan et al. 2019).
Female prisoners (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) are often the victims and survivors of violence, and may use violence as a strategy to respond to their victimisation. Structural factors related to bail and sentencing laws also appear to be contributing, with around 40% of all female prisoners in Australia being unsentenced (on remand) (Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Limited 2020; Heffernan Edward B et al. 2015; Wilson et al. 2017).
High proportions of Indigenous female prisoners are survivors of childhood sexual and other abuse (Lawrie 2003a, 2003b; Productivity Commission 2016; Wundersitz 2010). Indigenous women are vastly over-represented in prisons and suffer high rates of post traumatic stress disorder (from the sudden death of a loved one, being the victim of serious domestic violence or sexual assault, or observing serious physical violence in the home as a child), and co-occurring mental disorders, for which many did not access mental health care prior to incarceration (Heffernan Edward B et al. 2015).
Over the four year period June 2017–June 2021, young Indigenous Australians made up a higher proportion of those in unsentenced detention (an average of 66% in each quarter) than those in sentenced detention (an average of 34%) (AIHW 2021a). The consequences of this are severe and include separation from family and community; lack of access to therapeutic programs; a greater likelihood of receiving a remand period following a future court appearance and receiving a sentence of imprisonment compared with young people who are released on bail (Richards & Renshaw 2013); and greater risk of repeated contact with the criminal justice system in the future (Amnesty International 2017; Jesuit Social Services and Effective Change Pty Ltd 2013).
In New South Wales prisons in 2009, Aboriginal inmates were twice as likely to report a history of juvenile detention compared with non-Indigenous inmates, and Aboriginal men were more likely to have been in juvenile detention five or more times compared with non-Indigenous men (Indig et al. 2010). In New South Wales, a higher proportion of young Aboriginal youths in juvenile detention had been placed in out-of-home care as a child (38%) than non-Indigenous youths (17%) (Indig et al. 2011) (see measure <2.12 Child protection>).
Evidence shows how the effects of prison custody persist after release. A study in Western Australia found that released prisoners have an increased risk of death compared with the general population, and this risk is greater for Aboriginal people, with female Aboriginal prisoners at a particularly high relative risk (Krieg et al. 2016; Stewart LM et al. 2004).
Longitudinal analysis has shown that Indigenous Australians are around 1.7 times as likely as non-Indigenous Australians to be re-imprisoned within 10 years of release (ABS 2014; Zhang & Webster 2010).
A recent study modelled the costs of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offending and found more prolific offending among Indigenous Australians resulting in much higher costs across the justice continuum compared with non-Indigenous Australians. Between the ages of 10 and 31, chronic Indigenous offenders are estimated to each cost the criminal justice system over $380,000, compared with just under $75,000 for non-Indigenous offenders. This is primarily due to the greater frequency and length of youth justice sanctions for the Indigenous chronic offending cohort—in particular, probation orders and detention. The greater frequency may be due to the greater churn or frequency of contact with the criminal justice system for the Indigenous chronic offenders cohort over their young adult life, compared with the non-Indigenous chronic offenders cohort. It may also partly be due to the somewhat greater rate of violent offending among the Indigenous chronic offenders cohort, which may affect their eligibility for diversionary options or particular sanction types, as well as potentially affecting the length of their sanctions (Allard et al. 2020).
In 2009, the Australian Government funded the evaluations of 20 Indigenous Australian justice programs to build the evidence-base to support the National Indigenous Law and Justice Framework (2009).
The evaluations reviewed programs designed to reduce the rates of offending for Indigenous Australians, incarceration and recidivism, particularly among Indigenous youths and perpetrators of violent crime. The evaluations were published in 2013 and identified elements of programs that were good practice and well managed, including:
- Indigenous courts and conferences provide a more culturally appropriate and inclusive process and encompass the wider circumstances of offenders and victims, and may contribute to reducing recidivism.
- Community participation in supporting offenders’ reintegration post-release and preventing reoffending has brought ownership of the justice process and improved accountability and support for offenders.
- Effective service coordination and partnerships with allied services can assist offenders to navigate the complex justice system and gain access to the services they need.
- Monitoring and evaluation of programs need to be embedded in the program design with clear objectives and goals (Cultural Indigenous Research Centre Australia 2013a, 2013b).
Similar promising practices of Indigenous youth justice programs include the importance of having adequately resourced, culturally appropriate and competent services; effective collaboration; addressing multiple and complex needs of offenders; and family engagement and parental training. However, there is a lack of evidence on whether prevention and early intervention programs are working to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous young people in the criminal justice system (Davis & Higgins 2014). Areas that require further in-depth research and evaluation include how Indigenous participants fare in mainstream justice programs; how sustainable are the outcomes; whether collaborative case management in youth crime prevention and reduction programs is effective for Indigenous young people; and how effective are the structured, cognitive behavioural programs based on ‘Western’ psychological theories (Davis & Higgins 2014).
Marchetti (2017) argued that limited quantitative measurement of outcomes such as failure to reduce reoffending does not necessarily mean Indigenous-focused justice programs have failed, but rather suggest that important aspects of their contribution, such as the cultural complexities that drive and influence these programs, are not being measured (Marchetti 2017).
Circle sentencing (CS) is an alternative criminal justice process that involves the presiding magistrate working with a group of Indigenous elders and respected members of the community, victims and the offender’s family to determine the appropriate sentence. It has been in operation in Nowra, New South Wales since 2002, and has been expanded to other districts within the state. While prior qualitative research (Cultural and Indigenous Research Centre 2008) found that CS increased the offender’s awareness of the consequences of their actions and increased confidence in more appropriate sentencing outcomes among those involved, quantitative research (Fitzgerald 2008) using court outcomes from 2002 to 2007 did not find the program helpful in reducing reoffending rates when comparing offenders that participated in CS with those who did not. A follow-up quantitative evaluation, a decade after an initial evaluation in 2008, measured court appearances (from 2005 to 2019) and attendance of CS sessions (from 2005 to 2018) and found that offenders that participated in CS were 52% less likely to be incarcerated than offenders who never participated in CS. Investigating whether the reduced incarceration would increase reoffending, the study found that offenders that participated in CS were 9.6% less likely to reoffend than those who did not. When they did commit a new offence, offenders who participated in CS took 55 days longer to reoffend. However, the evaluation was unable to address the possibility that selection bias was driving the estimates, and thus they should be interpreted with caution (Yeong & Moore 2020).
The Tiwi Islands Youth Development and Diversion Unit in the Northern Territory provides a 12‑week diversion program engaging Tiwi youth (typically first‑time youth offenders) in prevention activities that aim to benefit the offender, the victim and the community (Davis & Higgins 2014; Stewart J et al. 2014).
- An independent evaluation of the program found it was effective in reducing adverse contact between Tiwi youth and the criminal justice system (Stewart J et al. 2014). Individual re‑offence data from the Northern Territory Police for program participants showed that 20% of participants (13 of 65 young people) had contact with the police for alleged offences in the year following commencement with the program—below what would be expected for this population without the intervention.
- Qualitative data found the program was useful in reconnecting young people to cultural norms, was culturally ‘competent’ and directly addressed the factors that contribute to offending behaviour, such as substance misuse, boredom and disengagement from work or education.
The Australian Government has funded the Time to Work Employment Service (TWES) in response to the 2016 Council of Australian Government’s Prison to Work Report. TWES is a voluntary in-prison program for eligible Indigenous prisoners. It aims to improve and support the transition of prisoners to post-release employment service providers to achieve better engagement with Indigenous prisoners from employment services and smoother pathways into employment support following release. An evaluation in 2021 found TWES complements state-based in-prison training, employment and reintegration programs by supporting the most disadvantaged and high-risk cohorts who cannot access other training and employment programs due to a range of challenges experienced including literacy. Further, the evaluation found that as a voluntary program, not all prisoners choose to participate and the rate of service completion was low (NIAA 2021).
Implications
The findings and research in this Measure show a high level of intergenerational disadvantage associated with contact with the criminal justice system. Supporting children and their families through wrap-around services and programs, designed and led by Indigenous Australians, can reduce the intergenerational effects of incarceration (Roettger et al. 2019). Many Indigenous Australians do not offend despite the presence of the common risk factors for offending. Further research into resilience and protective factors will aid approaches to prevention (Wundersitz 2010).
Primary responsibility for criminal justice issues sits with state and territory governments. The states and territories, as well as non-government organisations, deliver a range of programs to reduce levels of Indigenous incarceration and reoffending, including diversionary programs (for example cautions and conferencing), circle sentencing and Indigenous courts, and prisoner through-care arrangements (AHRC 2013). The Australian Government also funds a number of activities to complement efforts by states and territories to improve justice and community safety outcomes for Indigenous Australians, such as Custody Notification Services and Indigenous-specific through-care programs. The Victorian government recently published Wirkara Kulpa - Aboriginal Youth Justice Strategy 2022-2032 led by the Aboriginal Justice Caucus, under the umbrella of the Aboriginal Justice Agreement, and is a key initiative of Burra Lotjpa Dunguludja and the Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2020-2030. Wirkara Kulpa is written for and by Aboriginal children and young people and captures the aspirations and changes Aboriginal children and young people, their families and communities want to see. Wirkara Kulpa is focused on supporting Aboriginal children and young people so they remain outside the youth justice system and can live culturally rich lives.
The National Agreement on Closing the Gap (the National Agreement) was developed in partnership between all Australian governments and the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations (Coalition of the Peaks). Each party to the National Agreement has developed their own Implementation Plan and will report annually on their actions to achieve the outcomes of the agreement. Plans have been developed and will be delivered in partnership with Indigenous Australian partners.
Under Priority Reform One of the National Agreement (formal partnerships and shared-decision-making), the Australian Government has taken a leadership role to bring all states and territories, the Coalition of the Peaks, and Indigenous Australian independent representatives together, through the Justice Policy Partnership (JPP). The JPP will identify opportunities to work more effectively across governments to reduce the rates of Indigenous incarceration and youth detention, recognising states and territories largely have responsibility for the criminal justice system.
The JPP is focussed on the collective effort required to address the drivers of youth detention and adult incarceration. Building a strong foundation for Indigenous Australians to work together with governments through formal partnerships and shared decision-making is an important and respectful first step towards achieving Targets 10 and 11 of the National Agreement.
Action on other targets in the National Agreement will also help reduce the overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice system. These include actions to ensure families are safe, young people are meaningfully engaged in education and thrive in their early years, adults are employed, all people have good health and wellbeing, and that connections to cultures, languages, lands and waters are strong.
Crime prevention strategies have been recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission. Justice Reinvestment initiatives in Australia have taken the form of programs designed to empower Indigenous Australians to identify the drivers of crime and develop tailored, place-based solutions. These solutions are chosen for their potential to prevent crime (for example, night patrols or alcohol restrictions) and reduce recidivism (for example by rehabilitating prisoners returning to the community) (Australian Law Reform Commission 2017; Desmond Dawes & Davidson 2019).
The Australian Government as well as most if not all of the states and territories, have taken steps to explore the potential of Justice Reinvestment strategies (Willis & Kapira 2018). In 2022, the Australian Government has committed a landmark investment of $81.5 million to expand on First Nations-led justice reinvestment initiatives across the country. Originating from the United States in the early 2000s (Tucker & Cadora 2003), Justice Reinvestment is a ‘comprehensive strategy’ (DeMichele & Payne 2009) that aims to reduce prison numbers by determining more effective means of managing offenders and addressing reasons for their offending (Garland 2007). In many cases, these strategies have focused on the over-representation of Indigenous Australians in the justice system, as well as changes to the youth justice system (Schwartz 2010). In jurisdictions that have shown greater progress in Justice Reinvestment implementation, this has been achieved through the collaborative efforts of government, service providers, community representatives and academics.
Indigenous Australians are more likely to return to prison than non-Indigenous Australians, as they are more likely to experience risk factors for re-offending. Culturally appropriate wrap-around support models, such as Indigenous-specific through-care models, are designed to help address risk factors for reoffending through offering tailored support to Indigenous Australians while incarcerated and for an extended period following release from prison (Australian Law Reform Commission 2017; Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 2013). Availability and flexibility of community-based sentencing options has been recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission to prevent Indigenous Australians returning to the justice system (Commission 2018).
Efforts to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice system include:
- maternal health, parenting skills and family-based programs
- holistic intensive programs for Indigenous young people in out of home care
- actions targeting those at high risk of offending
- therapeutic and holistic support to address criminogenic needs
- programs targeting aggression and problem sexual behaviour
- prison-based rehabilitative programs, including prison services for people with a cognitive disability
- prisoner through-care programs, including employment-focused re-entry programs
- access to appropriate legal services (Australian Law Reform Commission 2017)
- early intervention, prevention, justice reinvestment and diversion initiatives (Pricewaterhouse Coopers 2017)
In April 2016, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to develop methods to address barriers to employment on release and to support Indigenous Australians as they transition from incarceration to employment (COAG 2016).
A strong attachment to culture is associated with better outcomes on a range of indicators, including the probability of being arrested or reoffending (Dockery 2010; Lafferty et al. 2016; Shepherd et al. 2018). Culturally appropriate law, legal and court services (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, Koori courts, circle sentencing, and restorative justice) that meet complex legal, cultural and language needs can help Indigenous Australians to navigate the justice system and mitigate systemic factors that disadvantage Indigenous Australians (Australian Law Reform Commission 2017; Urbis 2019).
In Australia, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10. This is the age below which a child is deemed incapable of having committed a criminal offence. At the 12 August 2022 Meeting of Attorneys-General (going forward this will be known as the Standing Council of Attorneys-General), participants agreed the Age of Criminal Responsibility Working Group would continue to develop a proposal to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility, paying particular attention to eliminating the overrepresentation of First Nations’ children in the criminal justice system. It is the states and territories that hold most of the levers in youth justice, policing and family services, including relevant criminal laws. However, raising the age of criminal responsibility will require changes to state, territory and Commonwealth legislation and implementation will require an increase in essential wrap-around support services.
Two main principles upon which the Australian youth justice system is based, and are incorporated in state and territory legislation, are that young people should be detained only as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period (Chrzanowski & Wallis 2011).
Diverting young people from further involvement in the justice system is crucial. Forms of diversion include:
- police warnings
- referral to services such as drug and alcohol treatment
- bail supervision for those at risk of remand
- youth justice conferencing.
Alternatives to detention include:
- transfer to specialist courts or programs
- supervised or unsupervised community orders (AIHW 2021a).
The JPP provides a forum to discuss matters such as the minimum age of criminal responsibility and support for young people as an alternative to youth detention. The JPP work plan includes improving justice outcomes for Indigenous children, with a focus on children under 14 years old.
Research needs to consider the effectiveness of different forms of diversion and alternatives to detention for addressing the over-representation of Indigenous youth in the justice system, particularly those in remand and unsentenced detention.
Following the National Agreement, in 2022 the Indigenous Justice Research Program was established to fund academic research to identify and analyse:
- the nature and drivers of the overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice and related systems;
- Indigenous Australians’ contact with and experience in the criminal justice and related systems;
- policies, programs or other activities that will contribute to a reduction in the overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice and related systems; and/or
- Indigenous approaches to crime and criminal justice.
Another critical issue in supporting Indigenous Australians who have contact with the justice system is ensuring that universal services are accessible and able to meet their need. For example, access to health services is needed both prior to imprisonment and post-release (Lloyd et al. 2013). Accessing health care post-imprisonment may require reapplying for a Medicare number, which creates an additional barrier to addressing health issues while managing competing priorities of re-establishing housing, employment and relationships with family and community. Some Aboriginal health organisations have developed their own health programs for prisoners and their families (Nettleton et al. 2007; Tongs et al. 2007).
In 2016, Delaney-Thiele and others examined the effects of incarceration and the return of former inmates to their communities on family members and how primary health care services might provide better support to Indigenous families and communities. They highlighted the need to identify which organisations are the key duty bearers for former inmates and family members and how best to support them to ensure they can access their rights to health and wellbeing. The study found that the key to effective post-release support is a linked and collaborative service network model so that when families and former inmates seek support, primary health care providers are ready to activate the network as well as provide targeted health interventions as needed (Delaney-Thiele et al. 2016).
A further area in which improvements could allow the needs of Indigenous Australian prisoners to be identified and addressed is data collection. The Australian Government is also working with states and territories to develop nationally comparable Indigenous offending and victimisation data sets that will help with identifying areas of greatest need and monitoring trends. More evidence is required about what prevention strategies and interventions are effective in reducing victimisation, offending and reoffending, and contact with the criminal justice system. There are also a number of gaps in the evidence regarding youth justice supervision, children intersecting between the child protection and youth justice systems, tracking movement into adult detention, and the health of those under youth justice supervision.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is working with corrective services agencies to explore ways to improve prisoner flow data to build a more accurate picture of incarceration (ABS 2019). National reporting of prison separations will help inform through‑care services for those released from prison (Avery & Kinner 2015).
The Policy context is at Policies and strategies.
References
- ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2014. Australian Social Trends 2014. Canberra: ABS.
- ABS 2016. National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, 2014–15. Canberra: ABS.
- ABS 2019. Corrective Services, Australia, March quarter 2019. Canberra.
- ABS 2021. Prisoners in Australia. ABS website.
- AHRC (Australian Human Rights Commission) 2013. The Social Justice and Native Title Report 2013. AHRC.
- AIHW 2019 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare). The health of Australia’s prisoners 2018. Cat. no. PHE 246. Canberra: AIHW.
- AIHW 2020. Australia's welfare snapshots 2019—youth justice. Canberra: AIHW.
- AIHW 2021a. Youth detention population in Australia 2020. Canberra: AIHW.
- AIHW 2021b. Youth justice in Australia. Canberra: AIHW.
- AIHW 2022. Young people under youth justice supervision and their interaction with the child protection system 2020–21. AIHW, Australian Government.
- Allard T 2010. Understanding and preventing Indigenous offending (Brief 9). NSW, Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse.
- Allard T, McCarthy M & Stewart A 2020. The costs of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offender trajectories. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice.
- Amnesty International 2017. The crisis of Indigenous youth detained in Australia. (ed., National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services). UN human rights council.
- Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Limited 2020. Telling life stories: Exploring the connection between trauma and incarceration for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. Sydney.
- Australian Law Reform Commission 2017. Pathways to Justice—Inquiry into the Incarceration Rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Final Report No 133.
- Australian Medical Association 2015. 2015 AMA Report Card on Indigenous Health - Closing the Gap on Indigenous Imprisonment Rates. AMA.
- Avery A & Kinner SA 2015. A robust estimate of the number and characteristics of persons released from prison in Australia. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health 39:315-8.
- Blagg H, Morgan N, Cunneen C & Ferrante A 2005. Systemic racism as a factor in the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the Victorian criminal justice system. Report to the Equal Opportunity Commission of Victoria.
- Brown D 2010. The limited benefit of prison in controlling crime. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 22:137-48.
- Butler T & Milner L 2003. The 2001 New South Wales Inmate Health Survey. Corrections Health Service Sydney.
- Butler T & Simpson M 2017. National prison entrants’ blood-borne virus survey report 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. Sydney: The Kirby Institute (UNSW Sydney).
- Chrzanowski A & Wallis R 2011. Understanding the youth justice system.
- COAG (Council of Australian Governments) 2016. Council of Australian Governments Meeting Communique - 1 April 2016. COAG (Council of Australian Governments)
- Commission ALR 2018. Pathways to Justice–Inquiry into the Incarceration Rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples–Disproportionate incarceration rate.
- Corrigan M 2018. Aboriginal justice: Major report makes key access to justice recommendations to reduce Indigenous incarceration. Bulletin (Law Society of South Australia) 40:34-6.
- Cultural and Indigenous Research Centre 2008. NSW Attorney General’s Department Evaluation of Circle Sentencing Program Report.
- Cultural Indigenous Research Centre Australia 2013a. Evaluation of Indigenous Justice Programs Project B: Offender Support and Reintegration Final report. (ed., Department AGs). Sydney: Cultural & Indigenous Research Centre Australia (CIRCA) in collaboration with Anne Markiewicz and Associates
- Cultural Indigenous Research Centre Australia 2013b. Evaluation of Indigenous Justice Programs—Project A: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Sentencing Courts and Conferences, Final Report. (ed., Department AGs). Canberra.
- Davis KL & Higgins D 2014. Law and justice: prevention and early intervention programs for Indigenous youth. Vol. Resource sheet no. 34 Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and Australian Institute of Family Studies.
- Delaney-Thiele D, Lloyd JE, Abbott P, Baldry E, McEntyre E, Malera-Bandjalan K et al. 2016. How primary health care can better support the families of aboriginal Australians in contact with the criminal justice system: A human rights approach. Aboriginal and Islander Health Worker Journal 40:25.
- DeMichele M & Payne B 2009. Using technology to monitor offenders: A community corrections perspective. Corrections Today 71:34-7.
- Desmond Dawes G & Davidson A 2019. A framework for developing justice reinvestment plans for crime prevention and offender rehabilitation in Australia’s remote indigenous communities. Journal of offender rehabilitation 58:520-43.
- Dockery AM 2010. Culture and wellbeing: The case of Indigenous Australians. Social Indicators Research 99:315-32.
- Doherty L & Bricknell S 2020. Deaths in custody in Australia, 2017–18. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
- Fitzgerald J 2008. Does circle sentencing reduce Aboriginal offending? . NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
- Garland C 2007. Increasing public safety and reducing spending: Applying a justice reinvestment strategy in Texas and Kansas. Corrections Today 69:64.
- Heffernan E, Andersen K & Dev A 2012. Inside out: the mental health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in custody report.
- Heffernan EB, Andersen KC, Aboud A, Scotney A & Kinner SA 2015. The Family Business: Improving the Understanding and Treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Among Incarcerated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women: Report. Beyondblue.
- Indig D, Topp L, Ross B, Mamoon H, Border B, Kumar S et al. 2010. 2009 NSW Inmate Health Survey: Key Findings Report. Sydney: Justice Health.
- Indig D, Vecchiato C, Haysom L, Beilby R, Carter J, Champion U et al. 2011. 2009 NSW Young People in Custody Health Survey: Full Report. Sydney: Justice Health.
- Jesuit Social Services and Effective Change Pty Ltd 2013. Thinking Outside: Alternatives to remand for children, Summary Report.
- Korff J 2016. Mental health at its worst in prison.
- Krieg AS 2006. Aboriginal incarceration: health and social impacts. Medical Journal of Australia 184:534-6.
- Krieg AS, Guthrie JA, Levy MH & Segal L 2016. “Good kid, mad system”: the role for health in reforming justice for vulnerable communities. The Medical Journal of Australia 204:177-9.
- Lafferty L, Treloar C, Chambers GM, Butler T & Guthrie J 2016. Contextualising the social capital of Australian aboriginal and non-aboriginal men in prison. Social Science & Medicine 167:29-36.
- Lawrie R 2003a. Speak out speak strong: researching the needs of Aboriginal women in custody. Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 8:81-4.
- Lawrie R 2003b. Speak out speak strong: Rising imprisonment rates of Aboriginal women. Indigenous Law Bulletin 5:5-7.
- Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 2013. Value of a justice reinvestment approach to criminal justice in Australia. Canberra.
- Levy M 2005. Prisoner health care provision: Reflections from Australia. International Journal of Prisoner Health 1:65-73.
- Lloyd J, Baldry E, McEntyre E, Indig D, Harris MF, Thiele D et al. 2013. Primary health care services better meeting the needs of Aboriginal Australians transitioning from prison to the community: SPRINT final report. Sydney: UNSW.
- Marchetti E 2017. Nothing Works? A Meta-Review of Indigenous Sentencing Court Evaluations. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 28:257-76.
- McCausland R, McEntyre E & Baldry E 2017. Indigenous People, Mental Health, Cognitive Disability and the Criminal Justice System. Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse, Policy and Reform, NSW Department of Justice.
- Nettleton C, Napolitano DA & Stephens C 2007. An Overview of Current Knowledge of the Social Determinants of Indigenous Health: Working Paper. http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/6662.
- NIAA 2021. Evaluation of the Time to Work Employment Service.
- Phelan L, Sotiri M & Scott M 2019. KWOOP Profile of Women in Prison Part A: A Snapshot. . Sydney.
- Pricewaterhouse Coopers 2017. Indigenous incarceration – Unlock the Facts.
- Productivity Commission 2016. Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators report 2016.
- Richards K & Renshaw L 2013. Bail and remand for young people in Australia: A national research project.
- Roettger M, Lockwood K & Dennison S 2019. Indigenous people in Australia and New Zealand and the intergenerational effects of incarceration.
- Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 1991. National Report. Australian Government Publishing Service.
- Schwartz M 2010. Building communities, not prisons: Justice reinvestment and Indigenous over-imprisonment. Australian Indigenous Law Review 14:2-17.
- SCRGSP (Steering committee for the Review of Government Services) 2020. Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2020. Canberra.
- Senate Community Affairs References Committee 2010. Hear us: inquiry into hearing health in Australia. . Canberra.
- Shepherd S, Delgado R, Sherwood J & Paradies Y 2018. The impact of indigenous cultural identity and cultural engagement on violent offending. BMC Public Health 18:1-7.
- Shepherd S, Ogloff J, Shea D, Pfeifer J & Paradies Y 2017. Aboriginal prisoners and cognitive impairment: the impact of dual disadvantage on Social and Emotional Wellbeing. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 61:385-97.
- Stewart J, Hedwards B, Richards K, Willis M & Higgins D 2014. Indigenous youth justice programs evaluation.
- Stewart L, Henderson C, Hobbs M, Ridout S & Knuiman M 2004. Risk of death in prisoners after release from jail. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health 28:32-6.
- Stringfellow R, Tauri J & Richards K 2022. Prevention and early intervention programs for Indigenous young people in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand.
- Tongs J, Chatfield H & Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service 2007. The social determinants of Aboriginal prison health and the cycle of incarceration and their implications for policy: an Australian Capital Territory case study. Adelaide.
- Tucker S & Cadora E 2003. Justice reinvestment: To invest in public safety by reallocating justice dollars to refinance education, housing, healthcare, and jobs [Monograph] Ideas for an Open Society, 3. New York: Open Society Institute.
- Urbis 2019. Review of the Indigenous Legal Assistance Program 2015-2020. (ed., Department AGs). Australia: Urbis in association with Cox Inall Ridgeway (CIR).
- Vanderpoll T & Howard D 2012. Massive prevalence of hearing loss among Aboriginal inmates in the Northern Territory. Indigenous Law Bulletin 7:3-7.
- Weatherburn D 2014. Arresting Incarceration: pathways out of Indigenous imprisonment. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.
- Willis M & Kapira M 2018. Justice reinvestment in Australia: a review of the literature.
- Wilson M, Jones J, Butler T, Simpson P, Gilles M, Baldry E et al. 2017. Violence in the lives of incarcerated Aboriginal mothers in Western Australia. Sage open 7:2158244016686814.
- Woodward R 2003. Families of prisoners: Literature review on issues and difficulties. FaHCSIA Occasional Paper.
- Wundersitz J 2010. Indigenous perpetrators of violence: Prevalence and risk factors for offending. AIC reports. Research and Public Policy series.:xi.
- Yeong S & Moore E 2020. Circle Sentencing, incarceration and recidivism (Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 226). Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
- Zhang J & Webster A 2010. An Analysis of Repeat Imprisonment Trends in Australia using Prisoner Census Data from 1994 to 2007. (ed., Australian Bureau of Statistics). Canberra: ABS.