An outcome evaluation of the NSW Justice Advocacy Service Diversion program

Summary

Background

In July 2022, the NSW Justice Advocacy Services (JAS) introduced the JAS Diversion program across six NSW Local Courts to support adult defendants with cognitive impairment to access diversionary outcomes under Section 14 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). 

JAS Diversion achieves this by assisting eligible defendants and their legal representatives to evidence cognitive impairment, develop tailored support plans, and facilitate access to disability and community‑based services, including the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). 

To evaluate program effectiveness, we matched 718 JAS Diversion participants with 2,852 comparable defendants with cognitive impairment who received less intensive advocacy support in courts where JAS Diversion was unavailable. We then compared differences across the two groups in court processing and post-court outcomes, including:

• bail-related outcomes;
• case outcomes (including diversion); 
• penalties and sentencing;  
• NDIS access and funding; 
• police‑reported crime victimisation; and 
• reoffending.

Key findings

Figure 1 shows the proportion of Section 14 case dismissals and post-court outcomes for JAS Diversion participants and the matched counterfactual group of adults with cognitive impairment who received less intensive court advocacy support services. 

Participation in JAS Diversion was associated with a significant 86% increase in court diversion through Section 14 dismissal, with nearly half of all JAS Diversion participants having their matter finalised through a Section 14 dismissal. Conversely, JAS participants were less likely to have their matter finalised via a guilty plea or verdict, or withdrawal of all charges. For those with a proven outcome, JAS Diversion participation was associated with shifts toward less restrictive penalties, and shorter custodial and supervised community order sentences. 

In the year following JAS support, JAS Diversion participants were 12% more likely to access the NDIS and had 22% higher funding support package values. Within a year of case finalisation, participants were 16% less likely to reoffend, driven mainly by reductions in breach offences. No differences were observed in police‑recorded crime victimisation. 

Figure 1. Association between JAS Diversion participation, Section 14 diversion  and post-court outcomes within one year 

Conclusion

Participation in JAS Diversion was associated with greater use of Section 14 diversion, less restrictive penalties, higher rates of NDIS support, and lower reoffending in the year following court finalisation.