Marginalized Knowledge: An Agenda for Indigenous Knowledge Development and Integration with Other Forms of Knowledge

Diversion

Diversion entails an attempt to find alternative ways of dealing with crime-related social problems in juvenile justice context. In particular, it means processing and treating juvenile offenders who have committed crimes outside the parameters of the formal juvenile justice system, primarily to avoid them being ‘harmed’ if processed through the formal system. Diversion programmes should not be seen as preventative, but rather as rehabilitative (Whitehead & Lab 1990:265). Chapter 6 of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 (as amended) stipulates several purposes of diversion.
Diversion programmes are resources that provide direct services and/or referral assistance to juveniles who appear in a juvenile court on a criminal charge and who are likely to be diverted from further formal justice processing and, instead, referred to such programmes in lieu of being tried and sentenced if found guilty. Diversion programmes are specifically designed for diverted juveniles, and aim at “ …producing institutional change by fostering improvement in and new commitments to youth services by existing agencies” (Simonsen & Gorden 1982:373-374). These authors contend that, although diversion is being viewed as the turning away from the formal juvenile justice system, to turning to something else (diversion programmes), present trends in juvenile justice that tend to be more human rights oriented and allowing it to look more like the adult justice system. Siegel and Senna (1988:442) opine that diversion refers to screening out juveniles from the juvenile court without being formally prosecuted. The screening process involves actually more than just turning juveniles away from the formal system. It encourages juveniles to participate in specific standardised programmes or activities by expressed or implied threat of further prosecution, should they fail or refuse to participate in those programmes intended to change their attitudes towards the commission of crime.
The United States of America pursues a three-step classification of diversion (Whitehead & Lab 1990:310):

1. 
   True diversion actually entails ‘direct, informal referral’ of juveniles by the police, which means the total release of juveniles from custody. Police officers would make suggestions and recommendations to the juveniles and/or their parents about where to get assistance to deal with the problem (crime). No follow-ups are being instituted to verify conformity with the referral;
   
2. 
   Proper screening of juveniles with goal directed follow-ups has been viewed synonymous with ‘true diversion’. Referral of juveniles to sources or agencies without any follow-up actually means totally ignoring the problem. Opponents of true diversion views diversion to be the substitution of a new, non-juvenile justice system programme instead of a formalised justice system of processing, adjudication and retribution and
   
3. 
   Minimising penetration into the formal justice system could take place at four stages of the juvenile justice process, the primary aim being to prevent juveniles from experiencing the full force and extent of the formal justice system. The first attempt to minimise or prevent entering the system occurs at ‘screening’, and subscribes to the notion of ‘true diversion’. The second stage at which diversion could take place is after an arrest of a juvenile but before any further involvement in the system. This would mean police intervention and referral to a non-justice system or non-governmental agency. The third phase involves processing where diversion is likely to become a reality and, lastly, diversion could take place after adjudication, but then before sentencing. Diversion at this point in time could actually be equated with de-institutionalisation.
   

Although provincial departments of Social Welfare are increasingly involved as a source of diversion, NICRO remains the primary provider of diversion programmes to South African youth courts (Sloth-Nielsen & Muntingh 1992000:16). NICRO offers five diversion programmes (Muntingh & Shapiro 1993:4):

1. 
   Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES), a life training skills programme involving young people and their parents or guardians;
   
2. 
   Pre-Trial Community Services (PTCS), allowing youth offenders the opportunity to perform community services in lieu of prosecution;
   
3. 
   Family Group Conferencing (FGC), which is similar to victim offender mediation, but also involves the family and friends of the youth offender in a process aimed at restoring the equilibrium and to prevent further offending;
   
4. 
   Victim Offender Mediation (VOM), which brings victims and offenders together in an attempt to reach an agreement on the way forward and to satisfy the needs of both parties and
   
5. 
   The Journey, which is an intensive and long-term programme, created for those youth offenders who are most at risk of relapsing into crime, and who are challenged to engage in a long-term process of working towards constructive and independent living.