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 interventionsâ 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-Ã -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.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:ufs/oai:etd.uovs.ac.za:etd-08252011-114612 |
| Date | 25 August 2011 |
| Creators | Steyn, Francois |
| Contributors | Prof HCJanse van Rensburg, Prof DA Louw |
| Publisher | University of the Free State |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | en-uk |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://etd.uovs.ac.za//theses/available/etd-08252011-114612/restricted/ |
| Rights | unrestricted, I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dissertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to University Free State or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds