Diversion

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

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)--1Newcastle YOT findings on Triage • re-offending rates lower (8.9% compared to 29.5%). • “substantial” savingson 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 • Level1—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. Referrals to Suffolk YOS--1st February – 30th September 2015 compared with same period in 2014.

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 byYOS—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.