1. Diversion Avril Calder
President, International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates (IAYFJM/AIMJF)

2. Diversion, diversion, diversion…….
Justice Renate Winter
CRC Committee

3. Options 1 sufficient evidence that the child has committed an offence
the child admits the offence
that it’s not in the public interest for a child to be prosecuted

4. Options 2  no further action –informal
 community resolution –informal
 Youth Caution--formal
 Youth Conditional Caution--formal
 charge.

5. Community resolution Non-statutory Local discretion on implementation
Victim’s wishes
Young person’s agreement in order to participate
Police notify YOS of all CRs

6. Youth Caution Statutory disposal
YOS notified--to determine need for assessment and intervention
YOS Assessment is a must for second and subsequent formal disposals
Non-compliance will inform future disposal decisions
YOS and police--joint decision-making process
views of the victim

7. Youth Conditional Caution 1
Statutory disposal
Police are empowered to offer a Youth Conditional Caution with
proportionate
rehabilitative,
punitive and
reparative conditions
as an alternative to prosecution

8. Youth Conditional Caution 2
YOS-- screen and advise police on appropriate conditions
YOS-- monitors compliance
Non-compliance may result in prosecution for original offence
child sees and signs YCC form

9. Youth Conditional Caution 3
severity and impact of offence
--previous offences and compliance
--willingness to engage and accept full responsibility
response must be proportionate, appropriate and defensible
views of the victim

10. Escalator effect?
The range of options can be given at any stage where it is determined to be the most appropriate action [1]
[1] S 136 LASPO

11. Restorative elements informal restorative meeting- victim and offender
formal restorative meeting-child, parents, victim,victim’s family or supporters, possibly communities
shuttle mediation
victim impact awareness statement
letter of explanation or apology

12. Information sharing protocols
how the police will inform the
YOT about the community resolutions and cautions they have delivered
YOT about cases that require assessment
and
how an out of court disposal will be decided
what an appropriate intervention would be
how police and YOT resolve differences
how to approach non-compliance

13. Fair assessment gravity matrix—scale of 1-4 public interest test
victim’s views
willingness to comply with interventions

14. Timing 1 working day police contact YOS: where there are concerns
if a second out of court disposal might be made
if a caution has been administered
where an assessment is needed
where a child has been charged
details of the child, offence and Gravity matrix score and victim
Victims must be contacted by police, victim’s details with the consent, passed to the YOT.

15. YOT assessments gravity score, likelihood of reoffending,
risk factors such as
home life,
homelessness,
alcohol and drug dependence,
gang membership,
school attendance
aggravating and mitigating factors

16. Police delivery of cautions--1
trained
wear uniforms
at police stations
YOT officer present
written details of the offence
explanation of the caution and its effect
accepting ( free legal advice)
consequences of not complying

17. Police delivery of cautions--2
the caution is recorded[1]
it will be cited in any future court case
YCC --YOT appointment made
YOT follows through on conditions
child can back out at any time, but there will be consequences.
[1] Police National Computer and standard and enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks for recordable offences. There is Local recording for non-recordable offences. Community resolutions are recorded locally.

18. Summary police and YOS work closely and train together
police provide information on offence, victim, gravity matrix score
YOS provides assessment of the child, suggests and monitors conditions
Victims are heard
Police + YOS deliver caution
Prosecution if necessary

19. Evaluation of diversion
Criminal Policy Research Birkbeck Report (2012)
7 Triage areas studied
FTEs decreased by a 28.5%, compared to 23% nationally.
Re-offending rates lower than the national average.

20. Northumbria University (2010)--1 Newcastle YOT findings on Triage
re-offending rates lower (8.9% compared to 29.5%).
“substantial” savings on costs to the individual, the community and the youth justice system

21. Northumbria University (2010)
The authors concluded that:
“Re-offending data suggested that Triage is more effective in reducing re-offending than conventional justice practices, due to the restorative nature of the scheme”.

22. Enhanced triage---Suffolk
Community resolutions ineffective
Level 1—low level offence
—2-4 YOT meetings in 4 weeks
---good family support
Level 2—more complex needs, possibly more serious offence
---holistic
---exit strategy

23. Triage Level 1 Triage Level 2 YC 1 YC1 + intervention YC 2 YCC ‘14 17
Referrals to Suffolk YOS--1st February – 30th September 2015 compared with same period in 2014.
Triage Level 1
Triage Level 2
YC 1
YC1 + intervention
YC 2
YCC
‘14 17 16 12 5 2
‘15 22 46 14 10

24. Suffolk pilot
18 members of the Suffolk YOS– interviews and focus groups
19 police officers – interviews, focus groups
73 police officers– online survey
16 young offenders
16 parent/carers and in one case, an adult sibling

25. profile of offenders
14.5 years- average age triaged to level 1 (13 boys, 9 girls)
14.71 years- average age triaged to a level 2 (33 boys, 13 girls)
15 years- average age of all receiving YC 1, YC 2 or YCC

26. Qualitative positives for enhanced triage (ET)--1
Police support :
--savings in police time
--increased efficiency
--perceived better outcomes for young offenders
Police work is proactive

27. Qualitative positives for enhanced triage (ET)--2
YOT welcomed greater involvement:
-- focus on causes of offending
-- possibly a fall in reoffending post ET
--children related positively
Increase in victim participation and satisfaction
YOS victim police officer was appreciated

28. Qualitative positives for enhanced triage (ET)--3
Many( not all) children and their parents valued the focus and help given by YOS—reflection and repairing harm
increased satisfaction for victims of crime and consistent decision making

29. Lessons learned Give clear and early information
Explain Police/YOT decision making
Some parents not always appreciative of help with drugs, schooling, time spent with child

30. Outcomes
victims, directly or indirectly involved in RJ 100% satisfaction (measured on a Lickert scale).
no offending by child at Level 1
less offending by children dealt with at Level 2 or by means of a Caution when compared with national reoffending rates.

31. Police officer
I see it (ET) as more of a preventative thing, so they [YOT] are putting in place the interventions, go out and see the kids….perhaps, not be so official about things and put in place the interventions to prevent re-offending”.

32. YOS PRACTITIONER
….. with community resolutions, a young person may have several contacts with the police before we get involved.
…. but now we are able to go in,…..it may be the second offence,….. deliver work which hopefully will prevent them entering the court system and save a lot of money”.

33. Durham County-integrated precourt system 2007-2012
74% reduction of FTEs
50% reduction in re-offending after a pre-reprimand disposal
£670,000 per year investment was delivering a cost benefit of £1.5 million per year (estimated) as a saving to the Criminal Justice System.