Diversion, Rights and Social Justice

Abstract

This article draws on historical understandings and contemporary models of diversion in order to develop a critical framework and agenda for progressive practice. The argument essentially revolves around the contention that typically diversionary interventions have been constrained by the contextual and ideological frames within which they operate. They have in some cases been highly successful in reducing the numbers of young people being drawn into the formal criminal justice system; however, this has largely been achieved pragmatically, by way of an accommodation with the prevailing logic of penal practices. Young people have been diverted at least partly because they have been ascribed a lesser level of responsibility for their actions, whether by virtue of age or other factors to which their delinquent behaviour is attributed. This ultimately sets limits to diversion, on the one hand, and also offers additional legitimacy to the further criminalisation of those who are not successfully ‘diverted’, on the other. By contrast, the article concludes that a ‘social justice’ model of diversion must ground its arguments in principles of children’s rights and the values of inclusion and anti-oppressive practice.

Challenging the Reductionism of “Evidence-Based” Youth Justice

“…This changing context of evidence production has precipitated a renewal of interest in the empirical evidence-bases of historically popular aetiological/theoretical movements in youth justice ("the old") inter alia, diversion and systems management [111,112], social control/bonds theory [113] and restorative justice [114] (Restorative Justice Council 2017). There has been a concurrent push to develop new evidence-bases around the modern, progressive and anti-risk/positivist approaches ("the new") such as those focused on constructive resettlement (constructive (e.g., strengths-based, positive), coordinated (e.g., multi-agency, multi-sector), consistent (e.g., stable), customised (e.g., individualised) and co-created (e.g., participatory, inclusive) responses to children who have offended [115] following contact with the YJS [101,115]), relationship-based practice and engagement methods [116], trauma-informed working [115] and the development of a "Child First" strategic model of Positive Youth Justice [75,117].…”

Professional Perspectives of Youth Justice Policy Implementation: Contextual and Coalface Challenges

“…The merits of systemic diversion gained widespread popularity and additional support among national and local policymakers as the cold wind of austerity began to blow through all tiers of government from 2009 (Kelly and Armitage 2015; Gray and Smith 2019; Smith 2020). For example, the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 engineered a wholesale revision of the out‐of‐court sentencing process for children in England and Wales, accelerating the use of diversionary practice and dramatically decreasing the (already falling) numbers of first‐time entrants into the YJS (Ministry of Justice/Youth Justice Board 2019).…”

“…Since that point, successive new governments and a constant stream of justice ministers have felt pressure to affect policy change nationally, including ‘to be seen to make or revise youth justice policy ’ (YJB). The desire for change, however, has been limited in policy terms by severely restricted economic means and an abiding political insecurity – coalescing into contextual instability and a degree of political inertia (McAra 2017; Smith 2020). The political and media compulsion for policy dynamism in youth justice nationally, therefore, has diminished demonstrably in the current context because ‘other political issues such as Brexit are taking precedence and masking all other political priorities in electoral terms ’ (YJBC).…”

“…In the current socio‐political context, creating new youth justice policy has been deprioritised as a political issue, perhaps to its lowest point ever (cf. Case and Haines 2020; Smith 2020), while YJB policy mechanisms (for example, providing effective practice guidance through policy products and face‐to‐face input) have become increasingly localised. Whether this shift constitutes a pragmatic response to austerity or the extension of early progressive partnership approaches on the part of the YJB remains moot; likely to be an uneasy mixture of both policy drivers:

Policy‐makers know that practitioners need to interpret and apply their policies and that they have the flexibility to wriggle and to reinterpret.

…”

“If I had had a me”: the benefits and challenges of involving children with lived experience in youth justice services

“…Lastly, we reflect on the implications of this study of one amongst many diversionary models available (Kelly and Armitage, 2015) for debates as to the direction of youth justice policy more generally. Is involving children with lived experience in youth justice services in the ways described here simply an additional string to the bow, or is there a glimpse here of what the future might look like post-abolition of the youth justice system (Case and Haines, 2021; Smith, 2021)?…”