Corrective Services NSW (Corrective Services) and Youth Justice NSW (Youth Justice) have strategic, and policy commitments aimed at reducing over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody.¹ The current framework underpinning their commitments is the National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020 (Closing the Gap), signed by the NSW Government in July 2020. Closing the Gap formally sets out the need for systemic and structural transformation of mainstream agencies in partnership with First Nations stakeholders. Closing the Gap targets relevant to this audit are:

• Target 10 – By 2031, reduce the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults held in incarceration by at least 15% (from a 2019 baseline).
• Target 11 – By 2031, reduce the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people (10–17 years) in detention by at least 30% (from a 2018–19 baseline).

Under the 2022–2024 NSW Implementation Plan for Closing the Gap, the government lead for Targets 10 and 11 in NSW was the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ), under which Youth Justice operates. Corrective Services previously operated under DCJ, until machinery of government changes made it a standalone agency on 1 October 2024. Corrective Services remains solely responsible for the adult correctional system in NSW. Under the 2025–2028 NSW Implementation Plan for Closing the Gap (released October 2025) the Families and Justice Sector Committee (FJSC) is responsible for achieving Targets 10 and 11. The FJSC is co-chaired by Deputy Secretary, System Reform, DCJ, and the CEO of AbSec NSW.

The NSW Government’s Aboriginal Affairs Plan, Opportunity, Choice, Healing, Responsibility, Empowerment (OCHRE), was introduced in 2013 and remains a current, active framework, establishing clear requirements for NSW government agencies. This includes the implementation of frameworks that facilitate self-determination and healing for First Nations peoples and communities. Self-determination ensures that First Nations voices influence transformation, including decisions about programs and services, while healing addresses intergenerational trauma. These principles align with and support the systemic and structural transformation required under Closing the Gap.

Corrective Services and Youth Justice are ‘receiving agencies’ and have limited control over the number of First Nations peoples initially entering their systems. The drivers of over-representation of First Nations peoples in the justice system begin well before a person enters custody. Systemic factors external to the agencies, including intergenerational trauma, entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage, legislative settings and policing practices drive over-representation, and continue to contribute to the risk of reoffending² after release. Addressing these drivers requires a coordinated, whole-of-government response.

While recognising the external systemic factors, both agencies nonetheless remain responsible for meeting their legislative, strategic, and policy commitments to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in the justice system, within their sphere of influence. This includes providing rehabilitative supports, programs and opportunities in custody and post-release, to support reintegration into the community and reduce reoffending.

First Nations peoples make up 3.4% of the NSW population, but are significantly over-represented in the justice system. As at December 2025:

• 33.9% of the adult prison population (4,452 people) were First Nations, the highest number and proportion on record, and 56.4% of the youth detention population (127 people) were First Nations.
• 36.1% of adults on remand were First Nations (2,196 people), the highest number and proportion on record, reflecting an 80.3% increase since January 2019. 54.1% of young people on remand were First Nations (92 people), a 21.1% increase since January 2019.

More than 60% of First Nations adults released from custody in 2023 (latest available data) reoffended in the following 12 months (compared with 42.1% of non-First Nations adults). Over 70% of First Nations young people released from custody in 2023 reoffended in the following 12 months (compared with 49.3% of non-First Nations youth).

In 1991, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) report found that, ‘Aboriginal people are in gross disproportionate numbers, compared with non-Aboriginal people, in both police and prison custody and it is this fact that provides the immediate explanation for the disturbing number of Aboriginal deaths in custody’. On 15 October 2025, the NSW State Coroner stated that, ‘Twelve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have died in custody in New South Wales so far in 2025 – the highest number ever recorded in a single year, with more than two months remaining in the calendar’.

This audit assessed whether Corrective Services NSW and Youth Justice NSW effectively and efficiently provide supports, programs and opportunities for the rehabilitation³ of First Nations peoples in custody and post-release to reduce reoffending. The audit assessed whether both agencies:

• have established governance and accountability arrangements to ensure First Nations peoples are effectively supported in custody, upon and post-release
• effectively plan and design relevant supports, programs and opportunities for the rehabilitation of First Nations peoples in custody, upon and post-release
• effectively and efficiently deliver and continuously improve relevant supports, programs and opportunities for the rehabilitation of First Nations peoples in custody, upon and post-release.

Corrective Services and Youth Justice are not effectively and efficiently providing supports, programs and opportunities for the rehabilitation of First Nations peoples in custody, held on remand, or upon and post-release to reduce reoffending.

The activities undertaken by Corrective Services and Youth Justice have had little to no impact on the rates of reoffending among First Nations peoples, nor alleviated pressure on an already overburdened justice system. The absence of effective, efficient and culturally appropriate rehabilitation services, including practical supports known to reduce reoffending among First Nations peoples, contributes to a costly cycle of reincarceration.

Both agencies have developed several strategies aimed at reducing over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody, including current strategies aligned with Closing the Gap. Each agency has also invested in specific programs and initiatives to provide support for First Nations peoples. Despite these efforts, the Closing the Gap requirement for agencies to implement ‘systemic and structural transformation’⁴ as an alternative to ‘business as usual’ solutions⁵ has not been met. The agencies have not established a coordinated, evidence-based framework to operationalise this requirement.

Both agencies have invested in strategies, programs and initiatives to provide support for First Nations peoples

Corrective Services and Youth Justice have developed strategies aimed at reducing over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody, including aligning their current strategies with Targets 10 and 11 under Closing the Gap. The agencies have established internal First Nations Units to provide expert advice on the development and implementation of strategies, policies, and programs that impact First Nations peoples. Recognising the importance of representation and cultural knowledge, both agencies have targets to increase First Nations employment. Corrective Services aims to increase First Nations employment to 8% by 2030. In February 2024, Youth Justice introduced its Aboriginal Employment Plan 2024–2026 (AEP), which reported that 11.4% of staff were First Nations. In December 2025, Youth Justice advised that its AEP has contributed to an increase in First Nations staff representation to 22%, including in management and executive roles.

The agencies have also invested in specific programs and initiatives to provide support for First Nations peoples. Corrective Services facilitates programs such as: the Aboriginal Women Leaving Custody Legal Aid Program in Broken Hill; the Homeward Sisters Project designed to support First Nations women facing housing challenges upon release; and the Co-Located Caseworker Program assisting women in custody with child protection matters. Youth Justice has started early work to increase investment in Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs) to deliver funded diversion programs and initiatives, including Youth on Track, Casework Support Program, Short Term Remand Program, Safe Aboriginal Youth Program and place-based initiatives.

Youth Justice also established: an Aboriginal Practice Mandate in 2022 to support First Nations staff as experts in cultural practice across the agency; an Anti-Racism Action Plan in July 2025; a Co-Design Framework in June 2025; and advised it is commissioning a First Nations consultancy to develop an agency-level shared decision-making framework, an important step toward embedding self-determination in its operations.

The agencies do not monitor, evaluate or report on expenditure attributable to First Nations peoples, or on the outcomes of relevant activity

The NSW Treasury’s TPG22–22 Evaluation Guidelines and First Nations Investment Framework require government programs, policies, strategies, services and projects to be evaluated to assess appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness and net social benefits. Priority Reform Three of Closing the Gap also requires agencies to increase accountability through public reporting on expenditure and service outcomes for First Nations peoples.

Since 2019, the agencies collectively had 5 strategies in place at different times which included actions aimed at reducing over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody. Two of these strategies have concluded and despite investment in programs and initiatives, the agencies have not achieved their targets. Corrective Services advised that its earlier strategy, A Strategy for supporting Aboriginal offenders to desist from reoffending (2014) remains in effect. The agencies also have current strategies aligned with Targets 10 and 11⁶ of Closing the Gap: Corrective Services’ Strategic Plan: Towards 2030 and Youth Justice’s Strategic Plan 2024–2030, but progress is off-track. As at July 2025, the Australian Productivity Commission reported that NSW’s progress against Target 10 is worsening, and there is no change (from the baseline) against Target 11. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) data also demonstrates the agencies have not achieved their targets.

The agencies have not monitored, evaluated, formally closed off or reported on the outcomes of their First Nations strategies. The agencies were unable to evidence tangible improvements for First Nations peoples resulting from activity as part of these strategies. Neither agency monitors, disaggregates or reports expenditure attributable to First Nations peoples.

The NSW Treasury’s 2023–24 NSW Indigenous Expenditure Report estimates that $735.9 million was spent on First Nations incarceration and community supervision in 2021–22. This figure represents the best estimate currently available, but is subject to limitations in data, methodology and interpretation. Nonetheless, it represents a significant investment that cannot be linked to outcomes consistent with strategy and policy by either agency. The absence of expenditure tracking and outcome evaluation increases the risk of inefficient resource allocation and undermines government commitments to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody.

The agencies have not operationalised the systemic and structural transformation required under Closing the Gap

Closing the Gap requires systemic and structural transformation of government organisations⁷, informed by First Nations peoples and grounded in evidence.⁸ More than 5 years on from the establishment of Closing the Gap, the agencies have not established an overarching evidence-based framework to meet this requirement. Although both agencies have strategies which incorporate Closing the Gap targets, current initiatives do not clearly demonstrate how their efforts deliver the structural transformation required.

For example, strategies include a focus on increasing the number of First Nations staff to achieve Closing the Gap targets. Corrective Services committed to increase First Nations employment to 8% by 2030. As at the date of its current strategy (October 2022), the rate of First Nations employment within Corrective Services was 3.2%. This target aims to increase representation but does not specify levels of seniority. Conversely, Youth Justice committed to increase the representation of First Nations peoples in senior leadership positions across the agency (including its Central Office), but has not outlined a specific target. In December 2025, Youth Justice advised that First Nations peoples represented 22% of agency staff, including in management and executive roles.

However, Closing the Gap emphasises that transformation requires embedding partnerships and shared decision-making with First Nations peoples, including mechanisms for consistent First Nations-led approaches at all levels, not only increasing representation. Without a clear evidence-based framework to operationalise partnerships and shared decision-making, neither agency can demonstrate that its efforts fulfil the requirement for systemic and structural transformation in line with Closing the Gap.

The agencies have not structurally embedded partnerships and shared decision-making in their operations, as required by Closing the Gap and OCHRE

Partnerships and shared decision-making are set out in Closing the Gap and OCHRE. This requires that First Nations peoples are empowered to share decision-making authority, including as part of governance arrangements, policy and program design, implementation and service delivery, and evaluation.

While the agencies have specific projects that facilitate the principles of co-design, they do not have a formal framework or established mechanisms at a statewide, regional and local level to facilitate partnerships and shared decision-making with First Nations stakeholders, in line with the principle of self-determination. This gap limits the capacity of agencies to deliver system-wide change that reflects the rights, priorities and aspirations of First Nations communities. Youth Justice advised it is in the process of commissioning a First Nations consultancy organisation to develop an agency-level shared decision-making framework, an important step toward embedding self-determination in its operations.

Closing the Gap, OCHRE, and NSW Treasury's TPG24.26 First Nations Partnership Assessment Policy also require government agencies to provide First Nations stakeholders with shared access to data and information, aligned with the principles of data sovereignty. However, the agencies do not have formal frameworks or agreements in place to uphold data sovereignty in partnership with First Nations stakeholders.

The agencies have not established governance and accountability arrangements to support their organisational targets to reduce over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody

The agencies have not established the internal governance and accountability structures needed to drive the systemic and structural transformation required under Closing the Gap. This limits their ability to translate strategic intent into operational change and to hold themselves accountable for achieving targets to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody.

Both agencies identify failure to reduce over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody as a strategic risk, yet effective governance and accountability mechanisms, including outcomes-focused performance measures, have not been established to mitigate this risk. While both maintain a broad suite of key performance indicators (KPIs), the agencies have not developed outcomes-focused KPIs aligned with the evidence-based factors known to reduce over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody. For example, although both agencies recognise that housing and employment are protective factors that reduce reoffending, they do not monitor, through dedicated KPIs, whether people exiting custody are linked to these services.

Executive oversight mechanisms are primarily focused on high-level metrics, such as the number of First Nations peoples in custody and reoffending rates. While these metrics provide insight into the scale of the issue, they do not on their own indicate how effective agencies are in responding to it. The agencies have not established place.based KPIs that reflect the distinct operational challenges of its facilities across the state, or KPIs that reflect the availability of services in each location.

The agencies have not clearly defined how individual roles and business units contribute to achieving organisational targets through specific functions, delegations and operational activities. Agency staff consistently reported to the audit that they were unaware of how their work contributed to achieving Closing the Gap targets. The absence of clear governance and accountability arrangements creates fragmentation, limits performance monitoring and hinders alignment of operational activities with Closing the Gap requirements.

The agencies' of classification, intake and assessment tools disproportionately impact First Nations peoples

Inmate security classification, intake and assessment tools influence an individual's access to rehabilitation programs, education, vocational training, employment and work release. These tools are often not fit for purpose when applied to First Nations peoples.

In 2023 Corrective Services identified that it had been incorrectly classifying inmates at a higher security level based on a misinterpretation of the escape-risk classification, which disproportionately impacted First Nations peoples. This issue was corrected in early 2024 and resulted in the amendment of security classifications for 320 people, around 250 (78%) of which were First Nations peoples.

Youth Justice uses the YLS/CMI-AA intake and assessment tool to determine a young person’s needs and risk of reoffending. However, the tool was not designed in consultation with First Nations stakeholders and has been found to disproportionately assess First Nations young people as high risk compared to non-First Nations young people. This is not due to a higher propensity for crime, but rather due to increased exposure to social inequality, which increases the risk rating. The risk rating can also increase based on immediate family relationships, but does not account for First Nations extended kinship structures.

The continued use of tools that are not fit for purpose increases the likelihood that First Nations peoples are classified as high-risk, limiting their access to programs that support reintegration, and exposing them to institutional barriers that contribute to cycles of incarceration.

The agencies do not monitor or evaluate their ongoing offence-focused programs to determine effectiveness and appropriateness for First Nations peoples

Corrective Services delivers a suite of 30 offence-focused programs for all offenders, however, these programs have not been co-designed with First Nations stakeholders. Conversely, Youth Justice delivers 3 offence-focused programs specifically for First Nations peoples, all of which have been co-designed with First Nations stakeholders.

However, the agencies have not established systems to monitor or evaluate the effectiveness of these programs and cannot demonstrate tangible improvements for First Nations peoples. Despite this, both agencies continue to allocate resources and enrol First Nations participants into these programs, creating a risk of ineffective and inefficient resource use.

The agencies have not developed a healing framework or therapeutic model of care for First Nations peoples in custody and post release

OCHRE recognises the enduring legacy of colonisation and the cumulative harm caused by successive government policies. It commits all NSW Government agencies to work with First Nations communities, policy practitioners and service providers to advance the dialogue on trauma and healing, and to develop evidence-based responses. Closing the Gap also requires agencies to facilitate truth-telling, to enable active and ongoing reconciliation and healing.

Twelve years on from the establishment of OCHRE, which remains a current NSW Government policy position, the agencies have not developed a healing framework with First Nations experts and other key stakeholders. As a result, there is no articulated commitment to evidenced-based approaches that address the unique healing needs of First Nations peoples in its systems, or to inform custodial and post-release services including casework and therapeutic care. This results in a critical gap between policy intent (under OCHRE and Closing the Gap) and implementation and increases the risk that custodial settings perpetuate harm for First Nations peoples, rather than support rehabilitation.

In addition, the agencies have not endorsed therapeutic models of care for First Nations peoples in custody and community, despite obligations under the 2022–2024 NSW Implementation Plan for Closing the Gap⁹ to develop culturally appropriate and trauma informed models of care for First Nations peoples in custody and post-release by 2024. Current activity remains limited to early, fragmented pilots that lack a unified model or meaningful partnership with First Nations communities. This creates a risk of inconsistent and culturally unsafe therapeutic care, which may undermine broader therapeutic throughcare efforts.

The agencies have not identified culturally appropriate post-release services and referral pathways

The agencies do not have an endorsed list of culturally appropriate healing, therapeutic and psychological services in community to refer First Nations peoples to when leaving custody. First Nations stakeholders reported that without a structured, culturally safe referral pathway, individuals often exit custody without access to services that respond to their unique experiences of trauma, disconnection and cultural identity. Appendix 3 of this report contains notes provided to the audit team by First Nations Inmate Delegates, expressing a lack of awareness of the support services available to them in custody and upon release.

The absence of a consistent referral framework also undermines the effectiveness of in-custody therapeutic interventions. Even where culturally responsive practices are used while in custody, their impact may be limited if they are not reinforced by community-based services that continue the healing journey. The disconnect between custodial and community care contributes to fragmented service delivery and missed opportunities for rehabilitation.

The agencies have not established structured, evidence-based approaches to balance their legislative obligations to maintain safety and security, with the delivery of rehabilitation supports

There is an inherent tension in custodial settings between maintaining safety and security and delivering rehabilitation supports to reduce reoffending.

This tension is compounded by resource limitations across therapeutic and custodial workforces. Psychologists report persistent vacancies, shortages, high turnover and burnout, particularly in regional and remote centres, which necessitate prioritising immediate safety concerns and reduce capacity for structured therapeutic interventions. Custodial staffing constraints, with high numbers of staff unavailable due to workers compensation claims, also reduce operational flexibility and can further disrupt rehabilitative program delivery and casework.

Despite the inherent tension, both functions are legislative responsibilities¹⁰ of equal standing. Yet, the agencies have not established structured, evidence-based and system-wide approaches to balance these obligations. Staff across both systems reported that rehabilitation is treated as a secondary function, rather than an equal core component of custodial operations.

The agencies have not used the levers available to them, or adapted their systems, to respond to the increase in the number of First Nations peoples held on remand

The number of First Nations peoples held on remand has grown significantly since 2019, predominantly driven by bail and sentencing policies outside the agencies’ control. However, Corrective Services has been aware of the increase in the number of First Nations peoples being held on remand since at least 2016, when its own internal research highlighted the increase.

Both agencies recognise the systemic challenges of a growing remand population, including limited supports for people on remand, disruption to education, employment and housing, and the increased risk of reoffending and further disadvantage for First Nations peoples.

Despite external factors beyond their control, the agencies have not used the levers available to them, or adapted their systems to better meet the needs of First Nations peoples on remand. Achieving the Closing the Gap targets requires a coordinated whole-of-government approach, including partnerships with relevant agencies and First Nations stakeholders. However, the agencies have not co-designed programs or supports to ensure that First Nations peoples are connected to, or already engaged with, services known to reduce reoffending prior to release from remand. They have also not taken formal steps to raise the practices contributing to the growing remand population with the NSW Government and relevant agencies.

The agencies’ formal partnerships with external agencies and First Nations stakeholders are limited

Corrective Services does not have formal partnerships or structured agreements with external agencies’ services known to reduce risks of reoffending, such as Homes NSW, NSW Health and TAFE NSW. The absence of formal arrangements limits the ability of agencies to coordinate efforts, identify and escalate service gaps, share accountability, and ensure consistent service delivery across the justice continuum.

Youth Justice has formal Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) with key agencies including the Department of Education (2015), Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network (2016), and the former Department of Community Services (2014). Despite the MoU having been active for between 9 and 12 years, Youth Justice cannot demonstrate their practical operation, effectiveness or the escalation of service system issues that limit access to supports known to reduce reoffending. Youth Justice report that these MoU are currently under review.

The agencies have not established formal partnerships or mechanisms to facilitate consistent engagement with key First Nations stakeholders at statewide, regional and local levels to enable system transformation and a collaborative approach to supporting First Nations peoples exiting custody.

By July 2027, Corrective Services NSW and Youth Justice NSW should:

1. Establish governance arrangements to direct activity and monitor performance in fulfilling agency obligations under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020 (Closing the Gap) to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody¹¹ including:
   1. formal data sharing with First Nations stakeholders, in line with Priority Reform Four¹²
   2. shared decision-making mechanisms with First Nations stakeholders to enable systemic and structural transformation, in line with Priority Reforms One¹³ and Three¹⁴
   3. designing and implementing meaningful operational and outcomes-based key performance indicators (KPIs) to track progress in reducing reoffending for First Nations peoples, including transparency over First Nations-specific expenditure, and resulting outcomes
   4. establishing clear accountability for achieving commitments to reduce reoffending and ensuring this accountability is embedded in governance models and performance frameworks (aligned with Closing the Gap).
2. Develop and implement a First Nations Healing Framework with First Nations communities that fulfills commitments made under OCHRE and Closing the Gap, including:
   1. co-designing an integrated therapeutic model of care in custody
   2. a comprehensive list of culturally appropriate therapeutic throughcare supports, approved by First Nations healing experts and made available for staff use. This list should be routinely reviewed and updated in partnership with First Nations stakeholders and informed by current research and best-practice therapeutic evidence.
3. Establish formal partnerships and escalation procedures with relevant agencies and First Nations stakeholders to ensure practical supports post-release, such as housing, education and employment.
4. Undertake a review of inmate classification, intake and assessment tools, and implement any changes required to ensure appropriateness for First Nations peoples.

¹ The phrase ‘over–representation of First Nations peoples in custody’ is used throughout this report for readability, and in line with terminology set out in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020, and the internal strategies of the audited agencies.

² For the purposes of this report, ‘reoffending’ and ‘recidivism’ are used interchangeably to refer to repeated or habitual relapse into crime.

³ ‘the process of returning to a healthy or good way of life, or the process of helping someone to do this after they have been in prison, been very ill, etc.’, Cambridge Dictionary.

⁴ Priority Reform Three, Transforming Government Organisations, National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020: 6. Priority Reform Three – Transforming Government Organisations | Closing the Gap.

⁵ NSW Closing the Gap Implementation Plan 2022–2024, p90 and p97.

⁶ Target 10: By 2031, reduce the rate of First Nations adults held in incarceration by at least 15% and Target 11: By 2031, reduce the rate of First Nations young people (aged 10–17) in detention by at least 30%, National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020.

⁷ Priority Reform Three, Transforming Government Organisations, National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020.

⁸ Priority Reform One, Formal Partnerships and Shared Decision Making, National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020.

⁹ Our performance audit into Governance of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap in NSW (2025) found that NSW implementation plans contained hundreds of initiatives but did not provide strategic guidance or link clearly to the achievement of outcomes. The audit found that progress against initiatives was limited due to weaknesses in governance arrangements, but that the heads of individual NSW Government agencies are also responsible for specific initiatives and accountable for their delivery.

¹⁰ Section 2A(1)(d), Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and Sections 4 and 14, Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987.

¹¹ Agencies should have regard to the relevant recommendations set out in our performance audit report Governance of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap in NSW (2025) when establishing their agency-level governance arrangements.

¹² Priority Reform Four: Shared Access to Data and Information at a Regional Level, National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020.

¹³ Priority Reform One: Formal Partnerships and Shared Decision Making, National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020.

¹⁴ Priority Reform Three: Transforming Government Organisations, National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020.

Corrective Services NSW (Corrective Services) manages 34 correctional facilities and 67 Community Corrections Offices, and has specific responsibilities set out in policy and legislation. Corrective Services is responsible for ensuring a safe, secure and humane environment for people who are required to be held in custody (both sentenced and remand), and those supervised in the community. Corrective Services is also responsible for the rehabilitation of offenders, with a view to their reintegration into the community.

Youth Justice NSW (Youth Justice) supervises young people in custody and in the community across 6 Youth Justice Centres and 34 Youth Justice Community Offices. Youth Justice is responsible for facilitating the proper control and management of detention centres, maintaining the physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing of young people, promoting the social, cultural and educational development of young people, and maintaining discipline and good order. The agency’s focus areas are: keeping young people out of court/custody; intervening early to address offence-related risks; reducing reoffending; and ensuring community safety.

In July 2019, a machinery of government (MoG) change created the NSW Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) by merging the former Family and Community Services and Justice departments to lead the Stronger Communities Cluster, focused on building safe, just and inclusive communities. Corrective Services and Youth Justice were co-located within DCJ as part of this reform. In October 2024, a subsequent MoG change re-established Corrective Services as a standalone agency.

Adults

Custody

As at December 2025, 33.9% of adults in NSW custody (4,452 people) were First Nations, the highest number and proportion on record. First Nations women made up 44.8% of all women in custody and First Nations men made up 33.1% of all men in custody.

In the 6-year period between January 2019 and December 2025, the number of First Nations adults in custody increased by 32%, from 3,374 to 4,452 people. Over the same period, the number of non-First Nations adults in custody decreased by 12%, from 9,865 to 8,679 people.

A significant number of reports and inquiries dating back to 1991 have highlighted the over-representation of First Nations peoples in the justice system. These sources have detailed the historical, social and economic factors contributing to the disproportionate rates of incarceration, including dispossession and systemic racism, and the need for structural transformation to address over-representation. See Appendix 1 for a detailed summary of previous reports and inquiries relevant to this audit.

NSW Government Aboriginal Affairs Plan 2013, Opportunity, Choice, Healing, Responsibility, Empowerment (OCHRE)

The NSW Government’s Aboriginal Affairs Plan, Opportunity, Choice, Healing, Responsibility, Empowerment (OCHRE), was introduced in 2013 and remains a current, active framework. Developed in response to recommendations by the NSW Ombudsman and the Audit Office of NSW, OCHRE requires that First Nations communities are empowered to make decisions about the policies, programs and services that affect their lives. It emphasises partnerships over paternalism and supports locally designed solutions led by First Nations communities rather than ‘one size fits all’ approaches.

While OCHRE does not contain specific reference to the over-representation of First Nations peoples in the justice system, it outlines several relevant initiatives including the Local Decision Making (LDM) model, aligned with the principle of self-determination. The LDM model supports devolution of local decision-making to First Nations peoples to improve service delivery in areas including the justice system, health, employment and education through negotiated accords. The over-representation of First Nations peoples in the justice system has been a priority theme of accord negotiations.

OCHRE recognises the importance of healing for First Nations peoples, that its meaning varies from person to person, it takes time and cannot be achieved through a one-off event or program. OCHRE also recognises that the wellbeing of First Nations peoples includes physical, social, economic, emotional, cultural and spiritual dimensions.

The National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020

The National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020 (Closing the Gap) was entered into by all Australian jurisdictions and the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations (CAPO) in July 2020. The objective of this Agreement is to ‘overcome the entrenched inequality faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people so that their life outcomes are equal to all Australians’. Within the Agreement are 2 targets relevant to this audit:

• Target 10: By 2031, reduce the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults held in incarceration by at least 15% (from a 2019 baseline).
• Target 11: By 2031, reduce the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people (10–17 years) in detention by at least 30% (from a 2018–19 baseline).

Under the 2022–2024 NSW Implementation Plan for Closing the Gap, the government lead for Targets 10 and 11 in NSW was the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ), under which Youth Justice operates. Corrective Services previously operated under DCJ, until machinery of government changes made it a standalone agency on 1 October 2024. Corrective Services remains solely responsible for the adult correctional system in NSW.

Under the 2025–2028 NSW Implementation Plan for Closing the Gap (released October 2025) the Families and Justice Sector Committee (FJSC), co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary, System Reform, DCJ, and the CEO of AbSec NSW, is responsible for achieving Targets 10 and 11.

Progress against these targets is reported annually through the Australian Productivity Commission (the Commission). As at July 2025, the Commission reported that NSW’s progress against Target 10 is ‘worsening’, and there is ‘no change’ (from the baseline) against Target 11.

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and its accompanying Regulation 2014

The main legislation governing the management of adults in custody in NSW is the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and its accompanying Regulation 2014. The objects of this Act are:

• to ensure offenders who are required to be held in custody are removed from the community and placed in a safe, secure and humane environment
• to ensure that other offenders are kept under supervision in a safe, secure, and humane manner
• to ensure that the safety of persons having the custody or supervision of offenders is not endangered
• to provide for the rehabilitation of offenders with a view to their reintegration into the general community.

Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 and its accompanying Regulation 2015

The legislation governing the management of young people in custody in NSW is the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987. The objects of this Act are to ensure that:

• persons on remand or subject to control take their places in the community as soon as possible as persons who will observe the law
• sufficient resources are available to enable the above objective to be achieved
• satisfactory relationships are preserved or developed between persons on remand or subject to control and their families.

In the administration of the Act:

• the welfare and interests of persons on remand or subject to control shall be given paramount consideration
• punishment for an offence imposed by a court is the only punishment for that offence.

Section 14(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to ensure that adequate arrangements exist to:

• maintain the physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing of detainees
• promote the social, cultural and educational development of detainees
• maintain discipline and good order among detainees
• facilitate the proper control and management of detention centres.

Young Offenders Act 1997 and its accompanying Regulation 2016

The Young Offenders Act 1997 is legislation that provides an alternative process for responding to young people who commit certain offences in NSW. One of the objects of the Act is ‘to address the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in the criminal justice system through the use of Youth Justice Conferences, cautions and warnings’.

Youth Justice Conferences, cautions and warnings are the diversionary options established by the Act. Youth Justice NSW administers Youth Justice Conferences, while NSW Police deliver other diversion pathways. The Act directly informs the policing practices and referral decisions that shape young people’s contact with the justice system and contribute to over-representation. An upcoming performance audit: Use of prevention and diversionary measures to address the over-representation of First Nations peoples entering custody will examine the role of the NSW Police Force in preventing and diverting First Nations peoples from custody.

Listed below are the internal strategies established by the audited agencies, relevant to reducing over-representation of First Nations peoples in the justice system. Appendix 2 of this report provides a timeline setting out the establishment and duration of each strategy, alongside relevant reports and inquiries, government policy, and legislation.

Corrective Services NSW April 2014, A Strategy for supporting Aboriginal offenders to desist from reoffending

This Strategy states that Corrective Services collaborates with other government and non-government agencies to reduce the incarceration and reoffending rates of First Nations peoples, and actively seeks the knowledge and expertise of First Nations community members to advise on strategies for enhancing program relevance and effectiveness.

The Strategy is focused on delivering effective programs that reduce reoffending and providing culturally and geographically appropriate services for First Nations offenders across custody and community. It seeks to strengthen education, vocational training and employment pathways to support community reintegration, ensure trauma-informed programs for First Nations women that enhance family and community connections, and offer relevant cultural awareness initiatives reflecting local Country, language, art and customs.

Additionally, it aims to improve accountability of Corrective Services-funded organisations and promote collaboration with regional non-government organisations and other government agencies to better address the complex needs of First Nations peoples leaving custody.

Corrective Services advised that this Strategy is ongoing.

Former Department of Justice NSW, Reducing Aboriginal Over-representation in the Criminal Justice System 2018–2020

This Strategy outlined 3 main objectives:

• help First Nations peoples avoid contact with the criminal justice system
• reduce the length of time First Nations peoples spend in custody, either on remand or sentenced
• reduce the rate of First Nations reoffending.

The Strategy expired in 2021 and was replaced by the 2022–24 NSW Implementation Plan for Closing the Gap.

Former Department of Juvenile Justice NSW, Aboriginal Strategic Plan 2018–2022

This Strategy set out to provide a 4-year framework for First Nations engagement and a program of work to deliver better outcomes for First Nations peoples. The Strategy outlined 5 key outcomes for Juvenile Justice:

• fewer First Nations young people in custody or on community orders
• more First Nations young people participating in early intervention and diversion programs,
• more First Nations staff (particularly in senior and leadership roles)
• embedded cultural practice across the agency
• First Nations issues, needs and culture systematically addressed through policy and practice.

The Strategy expired in 2022, at the conclusion of its intended 4-year period.

Youth Justice NSW, Strategic Plan 2024–2030

This is a one-page Strategic Plan structured around Closing the Gap Target 11 and the 4 Closing the Gap Priority Reforms. The strategy states that Youth Justice will achieve Target 11 by actions oriented around 5 focus areas:

• efforts and resources genuinely oriented towards Closing the Gap in a place-based way
• central teams will re-prioritise and re-align their work
• Directors, Managers and Shift Supervisors will become active implementors of the Closing the Gap Priority Reforms
• a commitment to transitioning towards leadership of Youth Justice being shared with First Nations peoples
• that Youth Justice will become anti-racist.

This is Youth Justice’s current strategy.

Corrective Services NSW 2022, Strategic Plan: Towards 2030

This Strategic Plan outlines 6 strategic priorities:

• work together as one team to achieve a reduction in reoffending
• develop a capable, professional, respectful and safe workforce that reflects the community it serves
• provide offenders with enhanced end-to-end case management to support them in breaking the cycle of reoffending and successfully re-integrating back into community
• ‘close the gap’ and reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody
• reduce the number of unnatural deaths in custody towards zero
• implement key performance indicators to track progress against priorities.

This is Corrective Services’ current Strategy, but it has reported that the strategy is currently under review.

First Nations leaders within each agency lack shared decision-making authority in line with Closing the Gap and OCHRE

While First Nations representation exists at the executive level, it does not translate into influence over operational or procurement decisions that affect First Nations peoples.

YJNSW has senior roles held by First Nations staff. However, these positions are not formally identified. CSNSW has an identified senior position. These roles do not have the delegated, system-wide operational authority necessary to influence core service delivery or resource allocation. Instead, their responsibilities are largely advisory or program-specific, limiting the extent to which First Nations leadership can shape strategic and operational decisions across the agencies.

This lack of authority by First Nations leaders within both agencies fails to meet the intent of partnerships and shared decision-making as required under Closing the Gap and OCHRE, and in line with the principle of self-determination.

Despite commitments to increase First Nations employment, the agencies have not established the authorising environment to enable First Nations-led decision-making

Corrective Services has committed to increase First Nations employment to 8% by 2030 as part of a broader effort to improve cultural safety, inclusion and representation. This target is a core key performance indicator (KPI) in the Corrective Services Strategic Plan: Towards 2030. It aims to increase representation but does not specify levels of seniority. As at the date of its current strategy (October 2022), the rate of First Nations employment across Corrective Services was 3.2%.

In February 2024, Youth Justice established its Aboriginal Employment Plan 2024–2026 (AEP), with the following targets:

• increase First Nations employees in each custodial centre to 10–15%
• increase senior leadership by filling all ongoing vacant positions via targeted or identified recruitment, with a particular focus on senior roles including Unit Manager and above in centres (Level 4), and Grade 9/10 and above in Community and Central Office.

As at February 2024, the rate of First Nations employment across Youth Justice was 11.4%. In December 2025, Youth Justice advised that its AEP has contributed to an increase in First Nations staff representation to 22%, including in management and executive roles.

However, Closing the Gap emphasises that transformation requires embedding partnerships and shared decision-making with First Nations peoples, including mechanisms for consistent First Nations-led approaches at all levels, not only increasing representation. Without a clear evidence-based framework to operationalise partnerships and shared decision-making, the agencies risk First Nations staff being employed into a system which does not provide the authorising environment for First Nations-led approaches.

The agencies have not established formal engagement mechanisms with statewide First Nations stakeholders to facilitate shared decision-making

Under Closing the Gap, OCHRE and TPG24‑26, each agency is responsible for facilitating formal partnerships and shared decision-making with First Nations stakeholders. This would enable the delivery of reforms that are community-led, culturally safe and responsive to the needs of First Nations peoples. The agencies have not established formal engagement mechanisms at a statewide level to meet this requirement.

Corrective Services established the Aboriginal Advisory Council (AAC) in 2018, intended to provide strategic guidance to the agency and as a mechanism to support engagement with First Nations communities. At its establishment, members of the AAC included both First Nations and non‑First Nations representatives from government and non‑government organisations across health, justice, housing, employment and research sectors, including Corrective Services staff. Of the 10 AAC agendas and minutes reviewed (dated between June 2018 and November 2022), AAC meetings included discussions in relation to Corrective Services’ strategy refresh, Terms of Reference for the AAC, presentations by Corrective Services staff in relation to planned initiatives for First Nations peoples, and presentations by other members and stakeholders in relation to existing programs and initiatives.

However, AAC members were appointed by Corrective Services rather than selected through a community-led process, inconsistent with the principles of shared decision-making and self-determination. The AAC did not have shared decision-making authority or the capacity to influence systemic or structural transformation. It was also not formally embedded within Corrective Services’ governance structures. The AAC has been inactive since 2022. Corrective Services advised that a new AAC will become operational by late 2025 and that new members have already been identified. Corrective Services has not provided evidence to demonstrate that the renewed AAC has been designed in line with the principles of self-determination and shared decision-making, including whether First Nations communities have had a central role in determining the ACC’s membership, purpose and authority.

Youth Justice do not have a statewide First Nations shared decision-making mechanism, however it reports that it is currently in the process of developing a model of shared decision-making, including the establishment of an Aboriginal Advisory Group. This presents an opportunity for Youth Justice to design the Aboriginal Advisory Group in line with the principles of self-determination and shared decision-making as required by OCHRE and Closing the Gap.

The agencies have not established formal engagement mechanisms with regional or local First Nations stakeholders to facilitate shared decision-making and improve throughcare support

Closing the Gap and OCHRE require government agencies to work with both regional and local First Nations governance groups. Specifically, the 8 Aboriginal Regional Alliances (Alliances) formally recognised by the NSW Government under the NSW Coalition of Aboriginal Regional Alliances (NCARA). Each Alliance represents the local communities within its boundary, operates through its own structures and priorities, and advances community aspirations through Local Decision Making (LDM) negotiations on what services are delivered and how they are designed and implemented.

OCHRE states that where Alliance coverage does not extend to parts of the state, agencies must establish separate engagement mechanisms with First Nations community governance groups to ensure inclusive and culturally legitimate decision-making, consistent with LDM principles.

The agencies (including Correctional and Youth Justice Centres and Community Offices) have not established formal engagement mechanisms with regional or local First Nations stakeholders to consistently facilitate shared decision-making. For example, neither has created mechanisms to engage with the Alliances. Six out of 8 Alliances identified priorities related to Closing the Gap Targets 10 and 11, to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody. Six reported that they do not have formal shared decision-making arrangements with either agency.

Some Youth Justice Centres advised that they engage with local First Nations stakeholders and organisations. However, this consultation occurs on an ad hoc basis, rather than through formal arrangements with clear reporting and accountability. In many centres, engagement efforts were heavily reliant on individual First Nations staff members, and staff across both agencies advised us that First Nations employees carry significant workloads and that turnover rates are high. The Inspector of Custodial Services (ICS), Inspection Standards for Aboriginal People in Custody, highlight the importance of providing appropriate supports to address isolation, cultural load and burnout among First Nations staff. Youth Justice advised that a Cultural Supervision Framework was introduced as a pilot program from July 2025, giving First Nations staff access to cultural supervision, including one session with an approved provider every 3 months.

The absence of formal partnerships limits the ability of agencies to co-design culturally responsive services and drive structural transformation across its regional and local systems. This gap is particularly critical in areas such as throughcare support, where culturally safe and community-led approaches are essential for improving outcomes for First Nations peoples transitioning from custody to the community. Despite their knowledge of regional and local needs and solutions, there is no consistent platform for First Nations stakeholders to influence the design of rehabilitation, reintegration or diversion programs tailored to their communities.

The agencies do not have a formal data sovereignty framework or related mechanisms to support self-determination and shared decision-making at the statewide, regional and local level

The NSW Government Data Strategy 2021, acknowledges the right of First Nations peoples to govern the creation, collection, ownership and application of their data. The Strategy also acknowledges that First Nations peoples have the right to data that empowers sustainable self-determination and self-governance, including data that is relevant, contextual, disaggregated, and protective and respectful of individual and collective interests.

In 2015, a Premier’s Memorandum (M2015-01) was issued setting out the roles and responsibilities of NSW Government agencies in supporting the Local Decision Making (LDM) model established under OCHRE. The Memorandum remains current and includes a direction for government and LDM Regional Alliances to share service provision and indicator data to support the operation of LDM. Priority Reform Four of Closing the Gap also requires the NSW Government to provide First Nations stakeholders with shared access to data and information at a regional level. Consistent with these obligations, NSW Treasury’s mandatory TPG24‑26 First Nations Partnership Assessment Policy November 2024, also requires agencies, for any new measure, to demonstrate how Aboriginal Data Sovereignty and Aboriginal Data Governance will be upheld.

Despite these requirements, the agencies do not have formal frameworks or agreements in place to uphold data sovereignty in partnership with First Nations stakeholders. Without a formal framework and related mechanisms, First Nations peoples cannot exercise self-determination. The agencies do not provide First Nations governance bodies with consistent access to disaggregated, community-specific data, such as incarceration rates, reoffending trends, or information on the outcomes and effectiveness of rehabilitation and throughcare supports. This restricts the ability of First Nations stakeholders to design, lead and deliver culturally informed solutions tailored to their communities.

Providing this data to First Nations governance bodies and communities would directly support the agencies’ objectives to reduce over-representation in their systems and make more efficient use of limited resources. This approach also aligns with Priority Reform Two under Closing the Gap, which recognises First Nations organisations as experts best placed to drive service design and delivery.

Corrective Services advised that its Aboriginal Strategy Directorate ensures data is shared with First Nations stakeholders during specific projects. Similarly, Youth Justice advised that its Client Information Management System (CIMS) Business Transformation Program is embedding Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Governance principles, including developing these principles and a framework for their practical application. Although these are positive steps by both agencies, this activity is confined to specific projects and programs.

The agencies have not developed a formal healing framework, in line with NSW Government commitments

Corrective Services recognised the unique rehabilitative needs of First Nations peoples in its development of a draft Rehabilitation Framework in March 2025. Similarly, Youth Justice’s Practice Guide acknowledges the significant impact of intergenerational trauma on First Nations peoples and the importance of using trauma-informed practice.

However, the agencies have not developed a healing framework with First Nations experts and other key stakeholders. As a result, there is no articulated commitment to evidenced-based approaches that address the unique healing needs of First Nations peoples in its systems, or to inform custodial and post-release services, including casework and therapeutic care. This results in a critical gap between policy intent (under OCHRE and Closing the Gap) and implementation. It also increases the risk that custodial settings perpetuate harm for First Nations peoples, rather than support rehabilitation.

The agencies have not established a body of evidence to inform First Nations healing and therapeutic models of care in custody and community settings

The agencies have not developed or endorsed an evidence-based framework for First Nations healing and therapeutic care in custody or community settings, and have not engaged or partnered with First Nations healing experts. This gap persists despite:

• a 2017 Audit Office of NSW report Therapeutic programs in prisons, which raised concerns about the lack of culturally responsive rehabilitation pathways for First Nations peoples in custody, noting poor outcomes and systemic barriers despite significant investment
• requirements under the NSW Government’s 2022–2024 NSW Implementation Plan for Closing the Gap for the agencies to co-design and establish a culturally appropriate, trauma-informed therapeutic model for First Nations peoples in custody by 2024, aimed at identifying system and service changes to address the underlying causes of offending
• the existence of substantial literature on culturally-grounded best practice approaches.

In 2024, Corrective Services established a partnership with the University of Sydney’s First Nations Health Research Lead to develop a Social and Emotional Wellbeing program for First Nations young people (18–24) in prison. The program aims to build an evidence-based curriculum addressing behavioural drivers. Literature reviews, interviews and focus groups have been completed, with a pilot planned and full implementation anticipated in 2 to 3 years.

Corrective Services’ Strategic Plan: Towards 2030, commits to co‑designing a new place‑based model with Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs), though this work has not started. The agency also plans to establish an Aboriginal Chief Psychologist to guide the integration of First Nations ways of Knowing, Being and Doing into psychological practice, aligned to its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Safety Framework.

Youth Justice advised it has secured funding in 2025–26 to develop a throughcare and therapeutic services package for First Nations young people. In 2024, it delivered the Therapeutic Pathways for Children Project, including a place‑based community‑led diversionary pilot, and is supporting development of a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) assessment and treatment approach with ACCOs.

Whilst positive, these actions are early‑stage, largely pilot or one‑off initiatives and remain fragmented. They do not yet constitute a unified, evidence‑informed and co‑designed framework across custody and community, or a comprehensive throughcare pathway. Without an evidence-informed model the agencies are limited in their ability to effectively deliver culturally safe psychological services.

Both agencies lack a consistent, evidence-based approach to healing and therapeutic care for First Nations peoples in custody

Both agencies employ permanent psychologists across custodial facilities, including 2 First Nations psychologists in Clinical Manager roles within Youth Justice. However, the agencies do not have a settled or endorsed approach on the most effective model of psychological or therapeutic care for First Nations peoples in custody. This is despite requirements under the Psychology Board of Australia’s Code of Conduct (the Code), for psychologists to practise safely and effectively, informed by the best available evidence, selecting interventions that are both evidence-based and culturally responsive. Where evidence is absent, the Code directs practitioners to follow accepted best practice.

In the absence of an endorsed therapeutic model, both systems lack clarity about the most appropriate approaches to psychological and therapeutic care for First Nations peoples in custodial environments. Psychologists across both systems reported limited awareness of, or access to, evidence on best practice models for First Nations peoples. Current practice draws on Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) and Narrative Therapy, but staff expressed mixed views about the suitability of some of these modalities for First Nations peoples. This indicates inconsistency in how therapeutic interventions are selected and delivered.

Due to the agencies not establishing a settled therapeutic model for First Nations peoples in custody, they have not determined the level of therapeutic dosage required to meet identified needs. Without a settled model, including dosage and supporting indicators to measure therapeutic intensity, the agencies cannot demonstrate whether interventions are sufficient, responsive or effective.

Within Corrective Services, approaches to addressing trauma in custody also remain unsettled and inconsistent. In response to the audit, the agency advised that: ‘there is a lack of a strong empirical evidence base to demonstrate that addressing trauma alone reduces reoffending’. It emphasised the constraints of delivering psychological interventions in custodial environments and that psychologists primarily focus on criminogenic issues and risks of reoffending. Conversely, Corrective Services staff, including psychologists, consistently held the view that addressing trauma is critical to reducing reoffending.

In response to the audit, Youth Justice advised that the custodial environment is inherently dangerous and criminogenic, limiting the feasibility of trauma-focused supports in custody. Operational staff across the agency agreed, expressing that there is a strong link between trauma and offending, but that addressing trauma directly is not appropriate in detention. Staff advised that their focus is instead on stabilisation and immediate trauma-related presentations.

The differing views within Corrective Services underscore the absence of an agency-level position on how trauma should be addressed within custodial settings. Whilst custodial settings may not be an appropriate setting to address trauma, both agencies agree that addressing it plays a critical role in reducing reoffending. This underscores the need for a settled approach for responding to trauma in custodial settings in some form. This is also critically relevant to enable structured, culturally safe referral pathways to ensure continuity of therapeutic and healing supports upon release from custody.

The agencies have not identified culturally appropriate post-release services and referral pathways

Neither agency has an endorsed list of culturally appropriate healing, therapeutic and psychological services in community to refer First Nations peoples to upon exit from custody. First Nations stakeholders reported that without a structured, culturally safe referral pathway, individuals often exit custody without access to services that respond to their unique experiences of trauma, disconnection and cultural identity. Appendix 3 of this report contains notes provided to the audit team by First Nations Inmate Delegates, expressing a lack of awareness of the support services available to them in custody and upon release.

The absence of a consistent referral framework also undermines the effectiveness of in-custody therapeutic interventions. Even where culturally responsive practices, such as narrative therapy or yarning circles are used while in custody, their impact may be limited if they are not reinforced by community-based services that continue the healing journey. The disconnect between custodial and community care contributes to fragmented service delivery and missed opportunities for rehabilitation.

Exhibit 8 below is an example of a program identified during the audit which reports a significant reduction in reoffending. While this program is just one example, it is notable that the agencies have not adopted a holistic approach to identifying and assessing the broader service landscape, limiting their ability to make effective referrals to programs that could support First Nations peoples and their families.

Source: AONSW analysis of publicly available information.

The agencies have not established structured, evidence-based approaches to balance their legislative obligations to maintain safety and security, with the delivery of rehabilitation supports

There is an inherent tension in custodial settings between maintaining safety and security, and the delivery of rehabilitation supports to reduce reoffending. These 2 core functions operate with distinct priorities: security focuses on containment, risk management and maintaining order; while rehabilitation targets the causes of offending, behavioural change and successful reintegration. The Australian Government’s Productivity Commission acknowledged this tension in 2021, highlighting that distinct security functions and mixed objectives can undermine rehabilitation efforts, particularly in facilities under pressure from high detainee numbers.

Delivering effective rehabilitation is constrained by resource limitations across both therapeutic and custodial workforces. Psychologists reported persistent vacancies, shortages, high turnover and burnout, particularly in regional and remote centres. For example, one adult facility reported operating with only 2.5 FTE psychologists for about 1,200 inmates. In such circumstances, psychologists must prioritise crisis interventions, such as suicide and self-harm prevention, leaving limited capacity for structured therapeutic support to reduce reoffending. Custodial staffing constraints also exist, with high numbers of staff unavailable due to workers compensation claims. This reduces operational flexibility and can necessitate increased lockdowns when security coverage is insufficient, further disrupting rehabilitative program delivery and casework. An upcoming performance audit: Managing unplanned leave and overtime, will examine how agencies, including Corrective Services, manage unplanned staff leave and the associated risks to safety and service delivery.

Despite the inherent tensions and system constraints, the agencies’ obligations to ensure safety and security, and the delivery of rehabilitation supports to reduce reoffending, remain legislative responsibilities of equal standing, neither of which can be treated as optional or subordinate. However, the agencies have not established a structured, system-wide, evidence-based framework to balance these requirements. Staff across both systems reported that rehabilitation is treated as secondary to security in operational decision-making, rather than as an equal core function of custodial practice.

Both agencies have invested in strategies, programs and initiatives to provide support for First Nations peoples

In 2023, Corrective Services established the Aboriginal Strategy Directorate (ASD), led by a First Nations Director and comprising 3 teams: the Aboriginal Strategy and Policy Unit; the Aboriginal Community Connections Unit; and the Aboriginal Advisory Unit. Prior to this, the Aboriginal Strategy and Policy Unit was in place, led by a First Nations Manager. From 2023 to early 2025, Corrective Services also employed a temporary General Manager, Closing the Gap Innovation. Similarly, Youth Justice established the Aboriginal Strategic Coordination Unit (ASCU) in 2002, overseen by a First Nations Manager. Across both agencies, First Nations units provide expert advice on the development and implementation of strategies, policies and programs impacting First Nations peoples, and advise operational business units on First Nations culture and perspectives.

Both agencies have developed strategies intended to address the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody. Corrective Services’ current Strategic Plan: Towards 2030, is aligned with Target 10 under Closing the Gap. Youth Justice’s Strategic Plan 2024–2030 is aligned with Target 11 and the Priority Reform Areas under Closing the Gap. Recognising the importance of representation and cultural knowledge, both agencies currently have targets to increase First Nations employment. In its current Strategic Plan, Corrective Services commits to increase First Nations employment to 8% by 2030 and includes this target as one of its core key performance indicators. Similarly, Youth Justice’s Aboriginal Employment Plan 2024–2026 (AEP), includes a target to increase the number of First Nations peoples in senior leadership positions. In December 2025, Youth Justice advised that its AEP has contributed to an increase in First Nations staff representation to 22%, including in management and executive roles.

The agencies have also invested in specific programs and initiatives to provide support for First Nations peoples. For example, Corrective Services facilitates programs such as: the Aboriginal Women Leaving Custody Legal Aid Program at Broken Hill, the Homeward Sisters Project, designed to support First Nations women experiencing challenges in accessing housing assistance upon release, and the Co-Located Caseworker Program to assist women in custody with child protection related issues. Youth Justice has started early work to increase investment in Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs) to deliver its funded diversion programs and initiatives, including Youth on Track, Family Workers, Casework Support Program, Short Term Remand Program, Safe Aboriginal Youth Program; and place‑based initiatives such as the Moree Bail Accommodation Program, Cockatoo Initiative and My Path.

Youth Justice established an Aboriginal Practice Mandate in 2022 to support First Nations staff as experts in cultural practice across the agency, an Anti-Racism Action Plan in July 2025, a Co-Design Framework in June 2025, and advise it is commissioning a First Nations consultancy to develop an agency-level shared decision-making framework, an important step toward embedding self-determination in its operations.

The agencies do not monitor or report on First Nations justice expenditure

Under Closing the Gap, governments are required to:

• increase accountability by transparently reporting expenditure and service outcomes for First Nations peoples (Priority Reform Three)
• examine and classify spending on programs and services for First Nations peoples, while exploring opportunities to redirect funding towards First Nations‑led organisations, particularly ACCOs (Clause 113)
• collect, handle and report data at sufficiently detailed levels of disaggregation to support informed decision-making (Priority Reform Four).

NSW Treasury publishes the NSW Indigenous Expenditure Report (IE Report), including information on the proportion of government spending on services and programs for First Nations peoples (reporting started in 2022). The 2023–24 IE Report provides estimates of 2021–22 statewide government expenditure attributable to First Nations peoples across a range of public services, including the justice sector. NSW Treasury does this by calculating service usage data and disaggregating expenditure on mainstream services used by First Nations and non-First Nations peoples.

The IE Report highlights that the NSW Government is estimated to have spent $2.46 billion on prison services in 2021–22, with an estimated $735.9 million (30%) attributable to First Nations peoples (see Exhibit 9 below). Prison services include expenditure on correctional and youth justice centres, and supervision of individuals under community corrections orders.

Despite expenditure on programs and initiatives, the agencies have not achieved previous targets and are off-track to achieve current targets to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody

While systemic factors influencing over-representation extend beyond the control of the agencies, both have committed to strategies aimed at reducing the disparity. Since 2019, the agencies collectively had 5 internal strategies aimed at reducing over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody. Two of these strategies have since concluded and despite investment in programs and initiatives, the agencies have not achieved their targets. Data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) confirms that over-representation has not decreased.

Two strategies remain current: Corrective Services’ Strategic Plan: Towards 2030, and Youth Justice’s Strategic Plan 2024–2030. Corrective Services advised that its earlier strategy, A Strategy for supporting Aboriginal offenders to desist from reoffending (2014), also remains in effect. The agencies current strategies are aligned with Targets 10 and 11 under Closing the Gap:

• Target 10: By 2031, reduce the rate of First Nations adults held in incarceration by at least 15%
• Target 11: By 2031, reduce the rate of First Nations young people (aged 10–17) in detention by at least 30%.

Progress against these targets is off-track. As of July 2025, NSW’s performance against Target 10 is worsening, and there has been no change from the baseline for Target 11.

There has been little to no improvement to reoffending rates

BOCSAR measures reoffending for First Nations peoples within a 12-month period. Data from BOCSAR demonstrates that reoffending rates for First Nations peoples remain significantly higher than those for non-First Nations people, with little to no improvement.

• In 2019, 61.1% of First Nations adults released from sentenced custody reoffended within 12 months. The rate remained stable at 61.5% in 2023 (latest available data). Over the same period, the reoffending rate for non-First Nations adults increased slightly from 39.8% to 42.1%.
• In 2019, 73.1% of First Nations young people released from sentenced custody reoffended within 12 months. The rate decreased slightly to 72.7% in 2023 (latest available data). Over the same period, the reoffending rate for non-First Nations young people reduced from 64.6% to 49.3%.

Failure to achieve a reduction in the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody is identified as a strategic risk to both agencies

Corrective Services’ Strategic Risk Register identifies ‘no impact on reoffending’ as a key strategic risk. One of the contributing factors to this risk is the continued over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody. Despite multiple strategies and commitments since at least 2014, Corrective Services has not met its targets or demonstrated measurable progress in reducing over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody.

Similarly, Youth Justice’s Strategic Risk Register includes ‘failure to reduce the over-representation of Aboriginal young people / Target 11 / Closing the Gap’ as a strategic risk. This risk was formally added to the risk register in October 2024 and assessed as both high risk and likely to occur. Youth Justice has not met successive targets since at least 2018 to reduce the over-representation of First Nations young people in custody.

Youth Justice’s risk register lists controls to manage this risk, but has assessed the strength of these controls as only partially effective. Youth Justice advised that although it has controls in place, such as its Aboriginal Employment Plan, Aboriginal Practice Mandate, cultural safety frameworks and targeted programs, residual risk remains high and complete mitigation is unachievable. The agency attributes this to systemic factors beyond its control.

Both agencies note that socio-economic disadvantage, intergenerational trauma, housing instability, health inequities and education gaps contribute to the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody. However, the agencies have not developed place-based approaches to understand, monitor and design interventions targeting these factors, or developed KPIs aligned to them. For example, whether people exiting custody are linked to relevant services. In addition, the agencies have not demonstrated that they are raising broader service system issues and gaps where services do not exist or are not effective. Both agencies must strengthen their risk management frameworks by linking strategic risks to performance measures and outcomes, and ensuring accountability for progress, to monitor and implement controls that reduce risk over time.

The agencies have not monitored, evaluated, formally closed-off or reported on the outcomes of its First Nations-specific strategies

NSW Treasury’s TPG22–22 Evaluation Guidelines and First Nations Investment Framework require evaluation of government programs, policies, strategies, services, and projects to assess appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness and net social benefits. Priority Reform Three of Closing the Gap also requires agencies to increase accountability through transparent funding allocations, and public reporting on expenditure and service outcomes for First Nations peoples.

Since 2019, the agencies collectively had 5 strategies in place at different points in time which included actions aimed at reducing over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody. Two of these strategies have concluded. Corrective Services advised that its earlier strategy, A Strategy for supporting Aboriginal offenders to desist from reoffending (2014) remains in effect. The agencies also have current strategies aligned with Targets 10 and 11¹⁵ of Closing the Gap: Corrective Services’ Strategic Plan: Towards 2030 and Youth Justice’s Strategic Plan 2024–2030, but progress is off-track. As at July 2025, the Australian Productivity Commission reported that NSW’s progress against Target 10 is ‘worsening’, and there is ‘no change’ (from the baseline) against Target 11. BOCSAR data also demonstrates the agencies have not achieved their targets. To date, none of the targets in these strategies have been met.

Despite repeated commitments, the agencies have not established accountability mechanisms or monitored progress against strategic targets. Earlier strategies were not systematically evaluated or formally closed-off before new ones were introduced, and there has been no public reporting of outcomes or evidence of tangible improvements attributable to these strategies. This lack of strategic continuity undermines transparency and accountability, weakens organisational learning and increases the risk of duplicating effort without understanding effectiveness. In addition, the agencies do not maintain records on the costs to develop and implement strategies, delivery timeframes or assessments of cost-effectiveness.

The absence of financial oversight and a robust performance framework, including outcomes monitoring, cost analysis and public reporting, limits transparency and accountability. It also impairs the ability of agencies to demonstrate whether investments and strategies are contributing to reducing over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody, whether resources are being used efficiently and effectively or whether adjustments are required.

The agencies do not have an evidence-based framework aligned with Closing the Gap to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody

Priority Reform Three under Closing the Gap requires systemic and structural transformation of government organisations, informed by First Nations stakeholders. However, the agencies have not established overarching evidence-based frameworks aligned to this requirement.

Although both have strategies, current initiatives led by the agencies do not clearly demonstrate how they will deliver the scale of systemic and structural transformation required to achieve the targets under Closing the Gap. For example, while strategies include a focus on increasing the number of First Nations staff to achieve the targets, Closing the Gap emphasises that genuine transformation requires embedding First Nations leadership and approaches at every level of the system, not only increasing representation.

Without a clear evidence-based framework, the agencies cannot demonstrate that their efforts fulfil the systemic and structural change required under Closing the Gap to achieve their targets.

The agencies have not established governance mechanisms to support the achievement of targets to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody

Current governance arrangements for meeting each agency’s Closing the Gap requirements rely primarily on their participation in the Aboriginal Justice Partnership Committee (AJPC). The AJPC includes representatives from the Department of Communities and Justice’s (DCJ) Transforming Aboriginal Outcomes (TAO) Unit and the Aboriginal Legal Service. Prior to machinery of government changes in October 2024, Corrective Services was also a division of DCJ, similar to Youth Justice. TAO is responsible for the implementation of DCJ projects to achieve Closing the Gap targets, but it does not have decision-making authority over policy, program commissioning or operational matters.

Corrective Services participates in a range of AJPC sub‑working groups covering key areas of justice reform, such as prevention, diversion, justice reinvestment, custody, throughcare and parole. Youth Justice co‑chairs the Target 11 Working Group with the Aboriginal Legal Service. These forums support collaboration and information-sharing between government agencies and First Nations stakeholders.

Corrective Services advised it is a key stakeholder across these working groups and that the AJPC and TAO Unit are primarily responsible for developing and endorsing working group outputs. While the AJPC provides a forum for collaboration, it does not hold operational responsibility for delivering the Closing the Gap Priority Reform Areas or targets. Corrective Services and Youth Justice hold significant operational levers that directly influence the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody and their strategic plans (both current and previous) explicitly acknowledge this responsibility. Their roles are not peripheral, but central to achieving progress under Closing the Gap.

Within each agency, governance arrangements to support the achievement of targets to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody are decentralised and lack a clearly defined process for assigning responsibility. There is no documented rationale identifying who is ultimately accountable for achieving relevant targets. This fragmented structure results in a lack of organisational accountability, where responsibility for outcomes is spread across multiple units without clear ownership or central oversight.

The agencies do not have established formal mechanisms that assign specific actions to staff or teams and there are no performance indicators linked to individual or unit-level responsibilities. As a result, strategic initiatives often lack traction and progress is difficult to monitor or evaluate. This absence of accountability undermines the capacity of each agency to drive implementation, respond to underperformance or ensure that their commitments translate into effective outcomes. The lack of a structured governance framework also limits transparency over how decisions are made, how priorities are set and how resources are allocated. This not only weakens internal coordination but also erodes external confidence in the ability of each agency to deliver on their commitments to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody.

Youth Justice advised that it is developing an outcomes framework led by a cross‑directorate working group and informed by consultations with Youth Justice staff, young people and ACCOs. It also advised that work is underway to support implementation of its current Strategic Plan at directorate, business unit and individual levels.

The agencies have not established accountability arrangements that define how individual roles and business units contribute to achieving organisational targets

Clearly defined roles and responsibilities are fundamental to effective governance and accountability. Despite longstanding targets to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody under Closing the Gap and its own internal strategies, the agencies have not clearly defined how individual roles and business units contribute to achieving intended outcomes. This does not mean that individual roles are responsible for achieving the overarching targets. Rather, governance arrangements should specify how relevant roles and business units within each agency contribute to progress against the targets through specific functions, decision-making responsibilities and operational activities.

Corrective Services do not include any performance metrics related to First Nations outcomes in its staff performance and accountability frameworks. Staff across correctional centres make decisions that directly impact rehabilitation and reintegration, yet several were not aware of the agency’s obligations under Closing the Gap. None of the staff interviewed understood how these obligations related to their roles.

Youth Justice includes general performance metrics related to First Nations outcomes in its staff performance and accountability frameworks. However, they have not operationalised the metrics in relation to specific roles and business units across the agency. Staff consistently reported that they were unaware of how these metrics applied to their responsibilities or how their work contributed to targets aligned with Closing the Gap. Instead, staff perceived the target as a policy aspiration rather than a directive guiding daily operations. Youth Justice reported that its next steps are to start implementation planning with a centralised structure and more clearly defined roles.

The lack of clarity over responsibility and accountability within the agencies makes it difficult to align operational activities with strategic targets under Closing the Gap. The absence of guidance, performance indicators, and operational frameworks linking roles and business units to targets results in fragmented approaches and weak performance measurement across both agencies.

Neither agency has established outcomes-focused key performance measures to achieve its targets

Since at least 2014, Corrective Services has committed to targets aimed at reducing over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody. Youth Justice has committed to similar targets since at least 2018. The agencies’ current strategic targets include:

• Corrective Services:
  • reduce incarceration rates for First Nations peoples by 15% by 2031
  • reduce reoffending among First Nations peoples by 10% by 2030.
• Youth Justice:
  • reduce incarceration rates for First Nations young people (aged 10–17) by at least 30% by 2031.

Whilst Corrective Services has established key performance indicators (KPIs), they are predominantly activity-based and compliance-driven rather than outcomes-focused. For example, Corrective Services monitors a KPI to reduce reoffending amongst First Nations peoples. To achieve this target, there are 3 supporting indicators:

• 98% of eligible offenders have a current case plan
• equity of First Nations peoples to programs, services and education
• 70% successful completion among higher risk parolees, and 75% successful completion among higher risk offenders on intensive correction orders.

Measuring whether 98% of eligible offenders have a current case plan demonstrates administrative compliance but does not indicate whether the plans have led to improved outcomes upon release from custody. Similarly, tracking equity in access to programs, services and education demonstrates that opportunities are offered, but not whether participation in such opportunities is effective in reducing reoffending. Completion rates for intensive correction orders demonstrates compliance with conditions.

Youth Justice monitors one high-level metric aligned with Target 11 under Closing the Gap - the average daily proportion of First Nations young people in custody. While indicators such as this provide insight into the scale of the issue, they measure the extent of the problem, which on its own is not an indication of how effective the agency is in responding to it.

The agencies have not established KPIs for key protective factors known to reduce reoffending among First Nations peoples

Since at least 2014, Corrective Services has recognised that education and employment are protective factors that reduce reoffending among First Nations peoples. Staff have also consistently identified access to stable housing as a critical support. Youth Justice staff similarly acknowledged these protective factors for First Nations young people.

Corrective Services’ Work and Education Business Unit has targets to increase First Nations participation in employment and traineeships whilst in custody. However, the agencies have not developed a comprehensive set of KPIs to monitor the key post-release protective factors known to reduce reoffending. While many key protective factors, such as stable housing and employment opportunities, fall outside the direct control of the agencies, both have a critical responsibility to connect people with these services upon release. This includes actively facilitating referrals, supporting engagement with culturally appropriate providers and monitoring successful links to these supports.

Establishing mechanisms to track referrals, service uptake and post-release outcomes would enable both agencies to identify systemic gaps, escalate barriers to service delivery, assess the effectiveness of casework and reintegration, and continuously improve service coordination and resource allocation, particularly where external systems fail to meet the needs of First Nations peoples. Monitoring post-release outcomes is critical to determine the long-term impact and effectiveness of interventions to support reintegration and to identify barriers that perpetuate cycles of reoffending. A structured approach to data collection and reporting would strengthen accountability, drive continuous improvement and support agency advocacy for broader reforms across government.

The agencies have not developed place-based performance measures, creating a risk that uniform approaches will not respond to distinct operational challenges, community-specific cultural and engagement needs, and varying levels of regional service availability

Corrective Services operates 34 Correctional Centres and 67 Community Corrections Offices, and Youth Justice operates 6 Youth Justice Centres and 34 Youth Justice Community Offices across NSW. Throughout the audit, stakeholders consistently emphasised that each centre and region have unique circumstances, including distinct operational challenges, community-specific cultural and engagement needs, and varying levels of regional and local service availability, capacity, and maturity (for example, quality, reliability and value). Despite this, the agencies have not implemented place-based key performance measures to monitor and evaluate outcomes for First Nations peoples.

Given the geographic diversity of First Nations communities and the local contexts that influence justice outcomes, the absence of place-based measures means agencies cannot determine whether interventions are effective in specific locations, identify regional disparities, or tailor responses to the unique needs of communities. Such measures would help agencies understand how systemic issues, such as access to housing, health services, education, and employment manifest across urban, regional and remote areas, and enable tracking of service engagement, referral pathways and post-release outcomes at the local level.

Place-based performance measures and related data would identify where partnerships with other agencies are working, where gaps exist and where targeted investment or reform is required. It would also strengthen the ability of agencies to negotiate and collaborate with external service providers and government departments. By evidencing where service delivery and outcomes are falling short or improving, agencies can advocate for more effective resources, policy and integrated service models that respond to local needs.

Given regional service systems vary in maturity (for example, family supports, health and healing, housing, education, employment), applying uniform key performance measures across all locations risks unintended or inequitable impacts on agency staff. For example, requiring staff to achieve specific rehabilitation outcomes where the necessary services or programs are not yet available can create an unfair burden. In contrast, a locally defined measure that tasks staff with building local partnerships and collaborative frameworks would lay the foundation for culturally appropriate rehabilitation pathways. Agency staff and First Nations stakeholders we spoke with strongly supported developing place-based performance measures tailored to local contexts to enable more targeted, responsive and effective service delivery. This approach would better reflect the realities of each site, support culturally safe practices and promote accountability for outcomes relevant to local communities.

Relevant to this finding, and included in the Audit Work Program 2025–2028, the Audit Office of NSW will be undertaking a place-based performance audit to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of government services in high needs First Nations communities. The audit will select one or more locations to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of human services agencies in coordinating, allocating and delivering services to First Nations peoples and communities. This may include how agencies understand the location, methods of partnering with the community, how government and its funded agencies collaborate to support clients, self-determination and devolution of decision-making, and the authorising environment (including the authorisation of local leaders).

Corrective Services has not established formal partnerships or escalation procedures with external agencies whose services support reduced reoffending and Youth Justice’s existing arrangements are insufficient

Corrective Services does not have formal partnerships or structured agreements with external agencies’ services known to contribute to reducing reoffending, such as Homes NSW, NSW Health and TAFE. The absence of formal arrangements limits the agency’s ability to coordinate efforts, identify and escalate service gaps, share accountability and ensure consistent service delivery across the justice continuum.

Youth Justice has formal Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) with key agencies including the Department of Education (2015), Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network (2016) and the former Department of Community Services (2014). These agreements are intended to support coordinated service delivery for joint clients and provide a pathway for escalating issues. Despite the MoU having been active for between 9 and 12 years, Youth Justice cannot demonstrate the mechanisms that support their practical operation, such as monitoring and evaluation, effectiveness or the escalation of service system issues that limit access to supports known to reduce reoffending. Youth Justice report that these MoU are currently under review.

The agencies have not established formal mechanisms to seek feedback from First Nations stakeholders to inform decision-making and support systemic and structural transformation

The agencies have not established formal consultation mechanisms with the 2 peak First Nations representative bodies in NSW, the Coalition of Aboriginal Peak Organisations (CAPO) and the NSW Coalition of Aboriginal Regional Alliances (NCARA). While both agencies may meet with member organisations, such as the Aboriginal Legal Service (ALS), this engagement lacks the depth required to drive system-wide transformation.

At the operational level, Corrective Services has not embedded formal feedback mechanisms with regional or local First Nations governance groups, ACCOs or community leaders. They also do not routinely seek input from First Nations Inmate Delegates or individuals on community corrections orders or parole. Stakeholder engagement is not measured, monitored or reported, and feedback from inmate and family complaints is not systematically tracked or analysed to inform service transformation and improvements.
Youth Justice similarly lacks mechanisms to collect and act on feedback from First Nations young people, their families and communities. Although some Youth Justice Centres demonstrate good practice in engaging with First Nations stakeholders and incorporating the voices of young people, these efforts are not embedded in policy or procedure and rely heavily on individual staff initiative. As with Corrective Services, this practice is not consistently monitored or evaluated.

Youth Justice advised it is partnering with key First Nations peak bodies, including the Illawarra Regional Aboriginal Alliance Corporation, North Coast Aboriginal Development Alliance, Western Sydney Aboriginal Regional Alliance, Murdi Paaki Regional Assembly, Riverina Murray Regional Alliance. However, Youth Justice has not provided evidence to demonstrate the existence of these partnerships or evidence of consistent engagement with these key stakeholders.

The agencies have not demonstrated how internal or external feedback is used to drive systemic and structural transformation. Without formal engagement strategies, structured feedback mechanisms and transparent processes for incorporating input into decision-making, both agencies risk missing critical opportunities to co-design culturally safe and effective systems and supports with First Nations stakeholders.

The agencies cannot demonstrate that their actions in response to public inquiry recommendations met the intent of recommendations or achieved intended outcomes

Corrective Services has systems in place to track and respond to recommendations. The relevant Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner is responsible for monitoring the implementation of recommendations. Two units within Corrective Services, the Parliamentary and Executive Services Unit and the Coronial Investigations and External Oversight Unit, are responsible for tracking the implementation of recommendations.

However, Corrective Services could not demonstrate that the actions taken to address recommendations were in line with the intent of the recommendation or that they have achieved their intended objectives. Corrective Services does not apply a consistent approach to reviewing, closing off or acquitting recommendations and does not publicly report on implementation.

Similarly, Youth Justice has formal registers to track and address recommendations but cannot demonstrate that recommendations have been effectively implemented or that actions taken met their intended purpose. Youth Justice does not publicly report on implementation.

A previous performance audit, Addressing public inquiry recommendations – Emergency response agencies (2021) found similar themes. Recommendations of the report emphasised the need for agencies to apply a consistent, evidence‑based and transparently governed approach to tracking, acquitting and publicly reporting on the implementation of public inquiry recommendations, ensuring that actions taken genuinely meet the intent of each recommendation and achieve their intended outcomes.

The agencies have limited quality assurance processes to ensure continuous improvement of their systems and services for First Nations peoples

Corrective Services’ programs, supports and systems are not consistently reviewed for continuous improvement. Corrective Services has a Quality Assurance Directorate which undertakes thematic reviews. None of the reviews are First Nations-specific but will consider outcomes related to First Nations peoples where relevant. The Executive Leadership Team consider the directorate’s thematic reviews, but there are no formal mechanisms or processes to incorporate the findings and recommendations into the design and delivery of Corrective Services’ services and supports. Therefore, Corrective Services cannot be assured its efforts to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples in custody and community are effective.

Youth Justice advises that it has a Quality Assurance Framework designed to embed cultural safety and accountability, and contribute to Closing the Gap targets. However, the framework is not documented. While Youth Justice describes processes such as incorporating culturally relevant indicators, consulting with First Nations staff, and using feedback from young people, the absence of a documented framework limits transparency and assurance over its consistent application.

Youth Justice advised that its approach to quality assurance is underpinned by Section 7(3) of the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 (the Act), which requires the inspection of all youth detention centres every 12 months. Youth Justice’s Risk and Compliance team complete these inspections and provide a report on the following:

• physical, psychological and emotional well-being of young people
• education, social and cultural development of young people
• general control and management of Youth Justice Centres
• moral conduct and functions of persons employed in Youth Justice Centres
• condition of Youth Justice Centres (including grounds, buildings, furniture, equipment and amenities)
• security of the Youth Justice Centres.

Youth Justice has not provided evidence to demonstrate that the reviews conducted contribute to or are aligned with efforts to reduce the over-representation of First Nations young people in custody, in line with Target 11 of Closing the Gap. Out of 20 Quality Assurance Reviews provided by Youth Justice spanning 2019 to 2024, the majority report a rating of few or no high priority issues for management to address. This conflicts with policy and strategic objectives and previous reports and inquiries, which indicate high priority issues that must be addressed to reduce the over-representation of First Nations peoples. There is a need to develop, monitor and report on key performance measures relevant to First Nations peoples to provide a more accurate view of progress towards intended outcomes.

¹⁵ Target 10: By 2031, reduce the rate of First Nations adults held in incarceration by at least 15% and Target 11: By 2031, reduce the rate of First Nations young people (aged 10–17) in detention by at least 30%, National Agreement on Closing the Gap 2020.

All individuals entering adult and youth custody in NSW are assigned an initial security classification based on a range of factors, including seriousness of their offence, sentence length and any previous criminal or custodial history. Once sentenced, individuals are re-classified. Corrective Services are required to review classifications at least annually and Youth Justice review classifications at various intervals depending on the young person’s legal status and period of incarceration.

A security classification is the principal factor used to determine which correctional or youth justice centre a person is placed in. It dictates the necessary physical barriers, surveillance and level of supervision to ensure the safety and security of correctional and youth justice centres. Classification also influences access to rehabilitation programs, education, vocational training, employment and work release.

Adults

First Nations adults experience disproportionate barriers accessing some programs and supports due to overclassification

Some programs and supports, including an intensive alcohol and other drug program, and opportunities for work release are primarily available to individuals in minimum-security centres. Overclassification of individuals therefore restricts access to these supports. For example, Corrective Services staff reported low participation rates of First Nations peoples in employment leave programs, with data indicating that of the 637 people recorded as participating in work release between 2022¹⁶ and 2024, 69 were First Nations (11%).

During this audit, Corrective Services staff advised us that First Nations peoples are often overclassified and experience disproportionate barriers progressing to lower security levels, which limits their access to some programs and supports. Corrective Services data indicates that of the 13,878 people who progressed to lower security levels between 2019 and 2024, 27% were First Nations. Over the same period, First Nations peoples made up approximately 33% of people who were classified as minimum security upon their discharge from custody.

Charges for offences committed in custody are a contributing factor to overclassification. Staff advised that First Nations peoples are more frequently charged for minor behavioural issues while in custody. In December 2024, Corrective Services analysed progression through security classifications for First Nations and non-First Nations inmates. This analysis included the rate of in-custody offences, per quarter over 2023–24, calculated as the number of incidents per 100 inmates using the average daily population. Exhibit 10 presents the data as an average for 2023–24, disaggregated by Aboriginality and gender:

Note: Offences in custody rates calculated as the number of incidents per 100 inmates (using the average daily population) over 2023–24.

Source: AONSW analysis of evidence provided by Corrective Services.

Despite the significant over-representation of First Nations peoples in its system, the Corrective Services Aboriginal Classification and Placement Team (ACPT) is comprised of only 3 staff, whereas the general Classification and Placement Group (CPG) consists of 19 staff. The ACPT makes initial classification decisions for First Nations people at reception into custody and at the time of sentencing, and provides advice on subsequent classification decisions. It does not assign classifications for all First Nations people.

ACPT officers hold delegated authority under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to independently make classification and placement decisions, consistent with Managers and Deputy Managers within the CPG. However, Corrective Services operational staff advised that ACPT decisions are often overturned, resulting in higher classifications for First Nations peoples. The agency advised that classification and/or placement decisions made by ACPT and CPG officers are subject to review, and may change in circumstances where new or additional information becomes available. It advised that this reflects established review processes and the exercise of delegated authority based on the information at the time of decision-making. The agency does not collect data on overturned ACPT decisions.

First Nations adults are often placed in correctional centres based on availability rather than proximity to family and Country

Clause 20 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 requires that inmate placement decisions consider the proximity of the correctional centre to the inmate’s family. Recommendation 168 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody similarly states that First Nations inmates should be located as close as possible to their families and have the right to appeal decisions that place them further away.

The Inspector of Custodial Services’ Inspection Standards for Aboriginal People in Custody also emphasise connection to Country, culturally appropriate care and community-based rehabilitation. These principles align with international human rights instruments, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which affirms Indigenous peoples’ rights to maintain cultural institutions, and sustain connections to land, family and community.

Corrective Services reports that the ACPT aims to place First Nations inmates in correctional centres as close as possible to their family and support networks, but that placements occur based on the availability of suitable beds at the relevant security levels. In practice, this results in First Nations peoples being placed in centres based on administrative availability rather than cultural or familial connection. This practice limits access to Country, kinship and cultural supports, which are protective factors known to reduce reoffending and support rehabilitation. Corrective Services advised it does not record data on First Nations inmates placed off-Country.

First Nations adults are often placed in correctional centres which do not match their security classification, impeding access to rehabilitative opportunities

Corrective Services confirmed that a large proportion of First Nations peoples are held in centres that do not match their classification level, exposing them to heightened criminogenic environments, which can increase the risk of reoffending and impeding access to programs and education. Corrective Services have been aware of this issue since at least 2015 when the Inspector of Custodial Services reported similar findings. Corrective Services data indicates that between 2019 to 2024, 41% of First Nations peoples in custody were held in security environments that exceeded their individual security classifications.

In some cases, individuals have exceeded their earliest possible release date due to mandatory pre-release programs being inaccessible. Corrective Services data indicates that between 2019 and 2024, 125 First Nations peoples exceeded their earliest possible release date. However, Corrective Services does not disaggregate this data by reason for non-completion, for example due to unavailability/inaccessibility of programs or other reasons. This issue was examined in our 2017 performance audit report Therapeutic programs in prisons. Although not First Nations focused (due to unavailability of sufficiently disaggregated data), the report found 75% of inmates who needed a prison-based program did not receive one before the earliest date they could be released.

Corrective Services used an incorrect interpretation of escape risk when classifying inmates, which resulted in First Nations peoples being disproportionately assigned higher security levels

‘Escape from custody’ is a charge that refers specifically to escaping from, or attempting to escape from, police custody at the time of arrest. Corrective Services includes this charge in its security classification process. However, it had previously applied an overly expansive interpretation, treating it as an escape or attempted escape from a corrective services facility. As an escape from a correctional facility results in a higher security classification, this misinterpretation had consequences for affected individuals.

Corrective Services advised that young First Nations men were particularly affected by this interpretation, which had been in place since the 1980s. In 2023, Corrective Services identified the error, and conducted an internal review in the first half of 2024 which resulted in changes to 320 individual security classifications, 250 (78%) of which were First Nations peoples. Corrective Services also implemented a new escape-risk classification policy.

Exhibit 11 below highlights the significant number of people who were misclassified and the reduction in escape-risk classifications between 2023 and 2024, following the review completed by Corrective Services. This misclassification disproportionately prevented First Nations peoples from progressing through the classification system. Corrective Services’ Strategic Risk Register identifies ‘incorrect inmate classification and placement’ as a potential cause of the risk of unnatural and avoidable deaths in custody.

Adults

Corrective Services delivers a range of offence-focused programs in both custodial and community settings that are designed to address the underlying causes of offending and reduce the risk of reoffending among individuals. These programs aim to address key risk factors, such as substance abuse, violence, poor decision-making and anti-social attitudes, and to support behavioural change, promote accountability and facilitate successful reintegration into society.

Corrective Services also delivers cultural programs aimed at supporting First Nations peoples in custody by strengthening cultural identity, promoting healing and reducing reoffending. Corrective Services provides opportunities for participants to reconnect with their heritage through storytelling, art, ceremony and cultural education.

Corrective Services delivers 3 First Nations cultural programs across 4 correctional centres

Corrective Services delivers 3 First Nations cultural programs across 4 correctional centres in NSW as part of its broader rehabilitation efforts. While these programs aim to support cultural identity and connection, none have been co-designed with peak or local First Nations organisations or communities. Corrective Services provides $150,000 in annual funding for these programs, with an external organisation contributing an additional $140,000 each year.

Under Clause 20 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014, inmate placement decisions must consider proximity to family. However, most First Nations peoples in custody are placed in centres located outside their Country. While cultural programs are a vital component of rehabilitation for First Nations peoples, their effectiveness relies on meaningful cultural relevance for diverse First Nations communities, consistent delivery, and integration with broader offence-focused and reintegration supports.

Corrective Services’ offence-focused programs were not designed by, or in partnership with, First Nations peoples and the agency cannot demonstrate that programs are achieving their intended outcomes for First Nations peoples

Corrective Services delivers 30 accredited and/or approved programs for offenders, which are intended to address specific offending behaviours and the risk factors associated with reoffending. The agency advised that the content of its offence-focused programs is not designed specifically for First Nations offenders; instead it provides a generic suite of programs aimed at addressing offence-related factors across the entire offender population. The agency has not co-designed its offence-focused programs with First Nations leaders, organisations, criminology experts or community stakeholders to understand and respond to the unique circumstances of First Nations peoples.

A 2025 Corrective Services research brief, Profiles of criminogenic need among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men and women in prison, analysed over 38,000 risk assessments and found that First Nations peoples in custody experience distinct patterns of offence-related needs compared to non-First Nations offenders. Despite this, the report acknowledged that most program design lacks cultural tailoring, particularly for First Nations participants. The brief concluded that there is a pressing need to develop interventions that reflect First Nations cultural backgrounds and gender-specific experiences to improve outcomes.

Between 2019 and 2024, an average 71% of First Nations peoples completed the 5 primary offence-focused programs, which are mandatory to enable eligibility for early release. However, Corrective Services has not established systems to monitor whether these programs are achieving intended outcomes for First Nations peoples across correctional centres or community corrections offices. Corrective Services staff advised that offence-focused programs have limited efficacy, particularly where essential supports, such as housing and employment are not in place.

The NSW Treasury TPG22–22 Evaluation Guidelines and supplementary First Nations Investment Framework set out mandatory requirements for evaluating NSW Government programs, policies, strategies, services and projects to assess their appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness and net social benefits. Corrective Services has not taken sufficient steps to ensure its offence-focused programs are effective for First Nations peoples, nor has it developed an evidence base grounded in best practice interventions for First Nations peoples.

Corrective Services does not maintain a detailed breakdown of program costs for First Nations peoples across custody, remand or community supervision settings. As a result, it is not possible to link expenditure with related outcomes. This lack of financial transparency limits the ability to understand whether investments are proportionate to impact. Without systematic recording, monitoring or evaluation of program effectiveness or expenditure, Corrective Services does not have the evidence base needed to support informed decision-making or continuous improvement.

Young people

Youth Justice’s First Nations-specific offence-focused programs have been co-designed with First Nations stakeholders

Youth Justice delivers 3 ongoing First Nations specific offence-focused programs in both custodial and community settings (see Exhibit 13). The programs are intended to change negative patterns of behaviour and reduce reoffending rates. All 3 are based on the principles of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), which Youth Justice advised was standard practice at the time of program development, but that it is now reconsidering this approach to ensure cultural responsiveness for First Nations, and other young people.

All 3 programs have been co-designed with First Nations stakeholders, including input from First Nations staff and internal advisory committees, external organisations, Elders and community stakeholders. Whilst this is positive, Youth Justice has not demonstrated a structured or consistent framework for co-design, or the systematic collection and use of feedback to inform program design and evaluation. Youth Justice has since finalised a Co-Design Framework in June 2025 and is in the process of commissioning a First Nations consultancy organisation to develop an agency-level shared decision-making framework.

Source: AONSW analysis of evidence provided by Youth Justice.

Youth Justice does not consistently monitor and evaluate its supports or offence-focused programs for First Nations young people and cannot demonstrate they are achieving their intended outcomes

The NSW Treasury TPG22–22 Evaluation Guidelines and supplementary First Nations Investment Framework require mandatory evaluation of NSW Government programs, policies, strategies, services, and projects to assess their appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness and net social benefits.

Youth Justice has evaluated some of its early intervention and diversion programs, such as Youth on Track, A Place to Go and the Broadmeadow Children’s Court programs. However, this practice is currently limited to discrete programs and pilots. Youth Justice does not monitor and evaluate its ongoing offence-focused programs or engagement with services (including links to housing, employment, education and health services upon release) across each of its Youth Justice Centres and Community Offices. Therefore, it cannot provide assurance that programs and supports are relevant to the needs of First Nations young people, or lead to any change or positive outcomes.

Youth Justice is unable to provide information about the costs of its programs delivered in custody, on remand and under community supervision, as it does not maintain a breakdown of its budget and expenditure by program. Program expenditure and outcomes are not being recorded, monitored or evaluated, which is limiting transparency and the ability to contextualise program expenditure against program efficacy.

Youth Justice captures data on participation and completion of programs. However, the data does not clearly demonstrate which centres offered programs and how frequently they were delivered. For example, data provided by Youth Justice shows that Dthina Yuwali, a First Nations specific alcohol and other drug program, was not delivered at 4 out of 6 youth justice centres between 2019 and 2024. Youth Justice’s 2023 quality assurance reports found that participation and completion of programs is not being captured in the agency’s Client Information Management System (CIMS).

Data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) demonstrates that the recent increase in the number of First Nations peoples in custody is largely driven by an increase in the number of people held on remand, which has grown significantly since 2019. The growth in the remand population is predominantly influenced by bail and sentencing policies, and reforms.

Adults

Domestic violence-related offences have been a significant contributor to the increase in the number of adults on remand, with BOCSAR reporting that it expects remand numbers to continue rising in line with increasing bail refusals for domestic violence matters.

As at December 2025, 2,196 (36.1%) adults on remand were First Nations, the highest number and proportion on record. 48.7% of all women on remand were First Nations, and 35% of all men on remand were First Nations.

In the 6-year period between January 2019 and December 2025, the number of First Nations adults on remand increased by 80.3%. Over the same period, the number of non-First Nations adults on remand increased by 10.3% (see Exhibit 2 within this report).

A significant number of First Nations adults are charged and placed in custody on remand, then subsequently released for reasons including:

• bail being satisfied¹⁷
• discharge to a supervised community order
• charges not proven
• receiving a penalty other than a custodial or supervised community order
• eligibility for the NSW Drug Court program.

First Nations adults spent an average of 68 days and a median of 44 days on remand before being discharged for the above reasons, as at December 2025. BOCSAR data demonstrates that out of 42,456 First Nations adults who entered custody on remand between January 2019 and December 2025, 21,652 (51%) were later discharged for these reasons. Exhibit 14 below sets out the number of First Nations adults discharged from remand custody between 2019 and 2025 by year and reason for discharge.

The NSW Government’s 2022–2024 NSW Implementation Plan for Closing the Gap reported that reoffending is a significant factor in the growing number of First Nations peoples in custody. It states that preparing First Nations peoples for release and supporting them on return to the community would significantly contribute to reducing the First Nations prison population.

Exiting custody without community supervision

Casework approaches for those exiting custody without community supervision do not ensure First Nations peoples are exiting with supports and services

Corrective Services’ Case Management Policy requires staff to provide pre-release and reintegration planning to reduce the risk of reoffending. However, in practice, Corrective Services caseworkers primarily encourage individuals to find information and make their own arrangements for services. Caseworkers do not:

• proactively ensure that people exiting custody have access to evidence-based supports and services
• have procedures to procure services when they are unavailable or clear escalation pathways when urgent access to services is required
• have access to a list of effective and culturally safe supports, including psychological services to suit individual needs.²⁰ The casework policy lists only Corrective Services oversight bodies as stakeholders.

Similarly, Youth Justice’s Case Management Policy requires staff to provide young people with referrals to external services to ‘help them establish supportive ties in their community or to assist them throughout and beyond their involvement with Youth Justice’.

Casework staff across Corrective Services and Youth Justice confirmed that their roles in linking people to services are largely passive. While they do provide referrals to services in preparation for and upon release, they are not able to follow up with individuals or services and they cannot advocate for an individual’s needs once a referral is made.

This inability to provide sufficient throughcare support is further constrained by the significant increase in the number of First Nations peoples on short-term remand, which leaves little time to prepare people for release and to reduce the risk of reoffending.

Both agencies acknowledge the need to improve casework and throughcare support and have received funding in their 2025–26 budget to develop new approaches to throughcare, in partnership with the Aboriginal Legal Service.

The agencies do not have mechanisms to understand whether casework and referrals contribute to improved outcomes for First Nations peoples exiting custody without community supervision

Corrective Services’ Case Management Policy requires its staff to provide pre-release and reintegration planning to reduce the risk of reoffending. A case plan is developed for people who have custodial sentences of 3 months or more and is required to be completed within 35 days of the sentence being handed down. Corrective Services monitors casework timeframes, but does not track whether case plans reach milestones/goals.

Youth Justice’s Case Management Policy requires that all young people have a case plan within 4 weeks of entering custody. As part of this, staff are required to identify factors and strategies based on comprehensive assessment of a young person’s offence-related needs, responsivity factors and strengths to reduce the risk of reoffending. Case plans must identify a young person’s goals, steps and strategies to achieve each goal, and any other personal goals to be addressed in the future. If needs or goals remain upon the young person’s exit from custody, Youth Justice staff are required to refer a young person to suitable services and facilitate engagement with that service.

Despite recognition of the need for throughcare, the agencies do not have mechanisms to understand whether custodial casework and post-release referrals contribute to improved outcomes for First Nations peoples exiting custody without community supervision. Whilst the agencies are not required to follow up or measure outcomes for those people exiting custody without community supervision, the lack of mechanisms, particularly for those who repeatedly return to custody, makes it difficult to assess and improve supports to reduce reoffending and reincarceration.

Exiting custody under community supervision

The agencies do not have measures to understand the impact of its casework for those exiting custody under community supervision

Corrective Services reports that a risk mitigation plan is developed for individuals exiting custody under Community Corrections supervision. These plans are collaboratively created by custodial and community-based staff to identify reintegration strategies, guide post-release supervision and address needs such as service referrals and program participation. For First Nations inmates, this may include connecting with local Aboriginal Community and Cultural Engagement Officers.

Corrective Services staff refer people under Community Corrections supervision to over 3,000 external support services across NSW, including drug and alcohol counselling, mental health services, accommodation providers, vocational training and employment services. However, Corrective Services does not have quantitative measures to understand the number of referrals taken up, or qualitative measures in place to assess the effectiveness of its casework or the impact of these referrals and supports on reintegration outcomes for First Nations peoples.

Youth Justice’s Case Management Policy acknowledges that transitions from detention to community supervision are points of significant change. The policy requires ‘substantial continuity in planning between detention and community’ including referral to services and facilitating engagement with services. The policy states the intention is to ‘establish supportive ties in their community or to assist them throughout and beyond their involvement with Youth Justice’.

The audit team found variation in how Youth Justice Centres manage continuity between custody and community. In some centres, strong relationships between custody and community teams support more consistent engagement. In other centres, community caseworkers and psychologists are not routinely visiting the centres prior to a young person’s release. Staff consistently emphasised the importance of early engagement prior to release and advised that continuity improves when community teams regularly visit custody centres and participate in handovers. Staff also expressed interest in opportunities to provide more throughcare support and support to families. The lack of consistent throughcare is compounded by high caseloads.

Youth Justice does not have measures in place to evaluate its casework procedures upon transitioning from detention into community supervision. It does not monitor or report on service activity, including engagement with services, or outcomes linked to services and supports, for example whether the young person has stable housing or is engaged with employment/education following their release.

This lack of evaluation makes it difficult for the agencies to understand what works, to improve service delivery and ensure that post-release supervision is meeting the needs of First Nations peoples exiting custody.

¹⁶ Corrective Services advised that work release records for the period prior to November 2022 are considered unreliable.

¹⁷ The decision to grant or refuse bail can be made by a police officer, authorised justice or court with power to make bail decisions under the Bail Act 2013 (NSW) (‘the Act’). Bail is satisfied where an individual can show cause as to why his or her detention is not justified, and if they do not present an unacceptable risk in accordance with Section 18 of the Act. Conditions may also be imposed on an individual to address any bail concerns, for example, accommodation, electronic monitoring, accompaniment, refrain from consuming drugs or alcohol.

¹⁸ Between 2019 and 2024, 8,533 First Nations young people were remanded into custody, then later released without conviction (including where bail was satisfied or the matter was dismissed).

¹⁹ First Nations young people spent an average of 16.3 days in custody on remand between 2019 and 2024.

²⁰ Appendix 3 of this report contains handwritten notes received by the audit team from a First Nations Inmate Delegate, expressing that they are unaware of culturally safe supports or services available to them in custody and upon release.

Between 2019 and 2024, 30% of First Nations young people admitted to custody were also in out-of-home care at the time of their admission. Data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that out of 1,144 First Nations young people who had been under Youth Justice supervision during 2022–23, 848 (74%) had an interaction with the child protection system. In its 2018 Pathways to Justice report, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) cited a 2005 study which found that ‘90% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youths who appeared in a children’s court went on to appear in an adult court within 8 years – with 36% receiving a prison sentence later in life’.

As at December 2024, Corrective Services reported that out of 4,007 First Nations peoples in custody, 766 (19%) reported they had previously been in out of home care. In recognition of the links between out-of-home care, juvenile justice and adult incarceration, the ALRC recommended the establishment of a national inquiry into child protection laws and processes affecting First Nations peoples.

Youth Justice has not formally partnered with Child Protection to identify and support young people who are frequent users of their systems

In 2014, the former Departments of Family and Community Services and Juvenile Justice established a Memorandum of Understanding and Joint Operational Practice Guidelines to support joint clients. Youth Justice and Child Protection have been co-located under the Department of Communities and Justice since 2019. Despite this, Youth Justice has not established systems to formally integrate case management and support for young people and their families involved in both systems.

The lack of integration between youth justice and child protection systems contributes to fragmented service delivery, inconsistent case management and missed opportunities for early intervention. In addition, the absence of shared governance, data, systems and culturally grounded practice perpetuates a reactive rather than preventative model of care. Without this, the trajectory from child protection to youth justice and adult incarceration remains a significant and unaddressed pathway.

Corrective Services has partnered with Child Protection to establish co-located caseworkers in women’s correctional centres

In January 2020, Corrective Services partnered with Child Protection to assist women in custody with child protection-related issues by introducing the Co-Located Caseworker Program (CLCW). This contributed to 2 of the then NSW Government key priorities; to reduce recidivism in the adult prison population, and to increase permanency for children in out of home care. It also addressed recommendations from the 2019 Family is Culture review, an independent review of First Nations children and young people in out-of-home care in NSW, which highlighted the need to improve casework practice for First Nations children with incarcerated parents.

An independent evaluation found that the CLCW Program was, ‘a well-designed, effectively implemented and much needed initiative for women in custody who have children involved with the child protection system’. The evaluation found that it has the potential to deliver significant benefits for women in custody and children engaged with the child protection system, and that it may also contribute to improved interagency coordination and collaboration between Corrective Services and Child Protection. The evaluation identified opportunities to strengthen the program if expanded, including greater involvement of services such as DCJ Housing and enhanced integration of correctional and child protection case planning.

Corrective Services has not established any formal partnerships or escalation procedures with external agencies whose services support reduced reoffending

Corrective Services has not established formal mechanisms with other relevant agencies to enable a collaborative approach to supporting First Nations peoples exiting custody with or without community supervision, and it has not developed escalation procedures to identify service access and availability gaps.

For example, Corrective Services staff advised that access to stable housing upon exit from custody is a protective factor to prevent reoffending. However, it has not partnered with Homes NSW to prioritise the housing needs of First Nations peoples exiting custody. Corrective Services is participating in discrete projects such as, the Aboriginal Women Leaving Custody Legal Aid Program at Broken Hill and Homeward Sisters Project designed to assist First Nations women in custody who are experiencing issues with accessing housing assistance. However, because formal agreements are not in place, the agency cannot escalate or collect evidence of service issues across the state to allow for broader service system planning with Homes NSW.

Corrective Services currently fund 30 supported accommodation beds delivered by 6 providers across 8 locations in NSW, none of which are located in Local Government Areas with the highest proportion of First Nations peoples entering custody. Corrective Services advise there is one dedicated Aboriginal Community-Controlled provider for First Nations offenders and that locations are determined by accommodation providers who bid for funding as part of the tender process. However, Corrective Services has not demonstrated that it actively cultivates opportunities for Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs) in locations of highest need. This is despite whole-of-government requirements under Priority Reform Two of Closing the Gap: Building the Community-Controlled Sector.

Youth Justice has formal partnerships with key external agencies, but has not demonstrated their practical operation or outcomes

Youth Justice has formal Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) with key agencies including the Department of Education (2015), Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network (2016) and the former Department of Community Services (2014). These agreements are intended to support coordinated service delivery for joint clients and provide a pathway for escalating issues.

Despite the MoU being active for between 9 and 12 years, Youth Justice cannot demonstrate the mechanisms that support their practical operation, such as monitoring and evaluation, effectiveness or the consistent escalation of service system issues that limit access to supports known to reduce reoffending. Youth Justice report that these MoU are currently under review.

Youth Justice staff also consistently reported to us that access to housing and other community supports are a risk factor for young people returning to custody. Exhibit 18 below illustrates examples of this. Youth Justice advised it is in the process of establishing a principle-based partnership agreement with child protection which will prioritise homelessness/accommodation supports.

Source: AONSW summary of audit fieldwork interviews and observations.

Both agencies partner with First Nations stakeholders to deliver specific post-release programs and initiatives, but lack more consistent formal partnerships and mechanisms at statewide, regional and local levels

Both agencies partner with First Nations stakeholders to deliver ad hoc programs and initiatives to support First Nations peoples exiting custody. For example, Corrective Services partners with the Aboriginal Housing Office, Tharawal Aboriginal Corporation and Marrin Weejali Aboriginal Corporation to deliver the Dubay Gunyah initiative in Western Sydney, a program which provides up to 6 months accommodation for First Nations women leaving custody.

Similarly, Youth Justice partners with the South Coast Medical Services Aboriginal Corporation to deliver the Aboriginal Reintegration and Transition Program (Ngudjoong Billa) in the Shoalhaven and Far South Coast region. Ngudjoong Billa aims to reduce the risk of reoffending through supporting young people to build resilience and wellbeing, cultural identity through strengthening connections to Country and family, and successful reintegration into the community.

However, this activity is confined to discrete programs, and there are limitations due to the location and capacity of each program, relative to the number of First Nations peoples who require support. The agencies do not have established formal partnerships or mechanisms to consistently engage with key First Nations stakeholders, including First Nations governance groups and ACCOs, at statewide, regional and local levels. This prevents collaborative approaches to support First Nations peoples exiting custody, under community supervision or otherwise.

In addition, the agencies have not established escalation procedures to identify and address gaps in service access or availability. Inconsistent partnerships and mechanisms across all levels limits the agencies’ ability to systematically identify service issues or escalate these to inform broader service system planning that responds to the needs of First Nations peoples and communities.