Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Open Access Approaches to diversion of child offenders in South Africa: a comparative analysis of programme theories(University of the Free State, 2010-12) Steyn, Francois; Louw, D. A.; Janse van Rensburg, H. C. J.English: Diversion of children in conflict with the law has been practiced in South Africa since the early 1990s. From that time, the number of referrals and the scope of programmes burgeoned despite the absence of legislation to regulate diversion. The Child Justice Act (CJA) came into effect on 1 April 2010 and provides measures for assessment, referral and management of children who are eligible for diversion. It also stipulates the options for diversion intervention. This study investigates the theoretical foundations, methods, value and limitations of four diversion strategies, namely lifeskills training, mentoring, outdoor intervention and family group conferencing. Attention is also paid to the interventions’ potential to realise the diversion aims of the CJA. Qualitative methods guided the research, in particular case study designs. A series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with the providers of the targeted diversion strategies. Programme documentation was also obtained in the form of training manuals and annual reports. In addition, interviews were conducted with Criminology and Social Work lecturers to further explore the theories that guide diversion strategies. Diversion programmes demonstrate particular understandings of the aetiology of child offending. The assumptions they make about the phenomenon to a large extent inform the methods used in the intervention process. Their assumptions include inadequate socialisation and personal abilities, absent and inimitable role models, negative life experiences and trauma, and reconciliation and reparation. Despite their unique assumptions, strategies appear to accommodate a fairly uniform profile of child offender. This raises questions about the assumptions of approaches regarding criminal behaviour vis-à-vis the risk factors they aim to address. Furthermore, parents feature as an important facilitator and inhibitor of diversion intervention. Their disinterest in or absence during significant intervention phases could restrict the outcomes and credibility of diversion programmes. Strategies that accommodate child offenders in groups are seemingly more inclined to exclude parents during the actual intervention. They may also fail to meet the individual intervention needs of participants as programmes are structured around a common goal for the group. Individual approaches, however, lack opportunities for vicarious learning. The time frames of diversion programmes and ad hoc followup procedures appear insufficient to optimally impact on criminal behaviour. Children who engaged in crime must acknowledge guilt for the offence in order to be diverted. Practice suggests that some children abuse the system in attempts to avoid formal prosecution. This could, in turn, compromise accountability which is a central aim of the CJA. Strategies show varying abilities to reintegrate diverted children with their families and communities. Moreover, only approaches that are fundamentally restorative in nature meaningfully involve the victims of offences. The lack of victim participation in diversion strategies fails to give effect to the reconciliation and reparation objectives of the CJA. Stigma stemming from contact with the criminal justice system appears difficult to avoid given the fixed location of service providers and some of the activities participants engage in. Despite these shortfalls, diversion shows promise in dealing with child offenders outside the ambit of formal justice procedures. It also prevents those who successfully complete the programmes from receiving a criminal record.