deprivation, high unemployment rates and the availability of alcohol and drugs may contribute to antisocial misbehaviour. The environment in which youth are reared can influence tendencies towards delinquency. Although research findings have supported the conclusion that no single risk factor accounts for youth antisocial behaviour and that no single path leads to a life of crime, research has not clearly identified all the causal paths that lead to youth delinquency or the factors that cause different individuals to pursue different paths in life (Bezuidenhout, 2013).
which was significantly different from that of diverted youth. In 60 of the 73 programmes, the recidivism rate of diverted youth was lower than that of youth processed by the traditional justice system.
A number of studies have shown that diversion programmes reduced recidivism among diverted youth when compared to youth processed by the traditional justice system (Elliott, 1997; Lipsey, Wilson & Cothern, 2000; Wood, 2003; Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Wilson & Hoge, 2013). A limited number of studies have demonstrated no effect (see Drake, Fergusson & Briggs, 2014) or increased recidivism (Lincoln, 1976; Dunford & Knowles, 1978).
In an evaluation study conducted by Muntingh (2001), one of the primary aims was to measure the recidivism rate of diversion participants. The study found that the programme had a good impact on the youth. When they were asked what they had learnt in the programme, their responses were “to stay out of trouble”, “crime doesn’t pay”, “to take responsibility for your own life”,
“responsible decision-making”, “to stay away from bad influences/friends”, and “to obey the law”.
The participants gave a number of positive responses. Most of them had no negative feedback on the programme. However, the negative experiences that were raised by the participants covered a range of issues ranging from conflict during the programme to programme content and administrative arrangements. The item with the highest frequency was the sharing of personal experiences with other programme participants. Muntigh points out that although this might be an uncomfortable experience, it is part of the process of taking responsibility. Muntigh (2001) concluded that the majority of participants reported that they had developed a positive personal change after completing the programme, with the emphasis on responsible decision-making.
Muntigh found that 6.7% re-offended in the first 12 months after participating in a diversion programme and a further 9.8% re-offence was recorded in the second survey. The average time
lapse from the completion of the programme to re-offending was 7.2 months. The first 12-month period after completing the programme appeared to be a crucial period as more than 50% of re- offending took place in that period. Owing to the low number of recidivists, it was difficult to make generalisations based on this study. Muntingh (2001) pointed out that the majority of recidivists committed property crimes.
Lipsey (2009) focused his meta-analysis on youth treatment philosophies and concluded that when controlling for methodological and sample characteristics, the context in which treatment programmes were delivered (for example diversion, probation, supervision or incarceration) did not influence effectiveness. However, he did find that skill-building interventions (for example cognitive-behavioural therapy) were more effective in diversion settings than when offered through probation supervision or in a custodial facility.
Proponents of diversion argue that programmes are less stigmatising than formal court involvement. Diversion reduces recidivism rates and provides youth with services they would not have received in the formal justice system (Beck et al. 2006). However, opponents argue that diversion programmes increase social control and self-reported delinquency among the youth, and can lead to the disproportionate representation of a minority of youth, as the process of selecting youth for diversion may be arbitrary in terms of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention (2010).
Warner (2014) points out that one of the largest problems facing the juvenile justice system is how to better handle juvenile crime without causing the juvenile to revert to criminal behaviour.
Another problem is to assist youth to understand and acknowledge that the crime they committed was an offence that should not have occurred. Muntingh (2001) laments the fact that much work
has been done in recent years on the effectiveness and the impact of diversion programmes but with little data to support it.
The summary results of the meta-analyses conducted by Wilson and Hoge (2013) indicated that diversion programmes were more effective in reducing recidivism than the traditional justice system. This conclusion is consistent with the proposition derived from the labelling and differential association theories. However, these scholars’ findings differed from those of previous meta-analysis studies on diversion, as the latter studies concluded that diversion produced no significant effects on the youth (Gensheimer, Mayer, Gottschalk, & Davidson, 1986; Drake et al., 2014). This controversy thus prompted the need to explore to what extent an investigation into a diversion programme in the Durban area could contribute to this debate and add to the discourse on the possible impact of the Youth Empowerment Scheme programme on youths who may be selected to participate in the programme.
One study that was conducted (Lipsey, Howell, Marion, Chapman, & Caver, 2010:5) on the effectiveness of diversion programmes found that it was difficult to determine their impact. The latter authors concluded that an increasing body of research should seek evidence to addresses this problem, but the findings of this research have not been well integrated into most juvenile justice systems. Therefore, continued research development within the framework of diversion is crucial in order to keep abreast of current changes and challenges.