Diversion in South Africa

The document examines the evolution of diversion in South Africa, moving from disjointed, discretionary practices in the 1990s toward a regulated system under the Child Justice Bill. It details the Bill's mechanisms for expanding diversion, such as compulsory assessments and preliminary inquiries, and categorizes diversion options into three levels based on offence severity. The paper also analyzes the role of the National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) as a primary provider and presents cost-benefit analyses suggesting that increased diversion spending would lead to overall government savings by reducing child detention. Evaluation studies of specific programmes like SAYStOP and DIME generally show positive outcomes in reducing recidivism and improving child well-being.

• Prior to the Child Justice Bill, diversion in South Africa was implemented without a regulating legislative framework, leading to a "selective and disjointed manner" of application where children experienced "very cautious and highly discretionary administration of diversion."
• The Child Justice Bill introduces two compulsory procedures to streamline diversion: a probation officer's assessment within 48 hours of arrest and a preliminary inquiry presided over by a magistrate to determine the "possibility and appropriateness of diversion."
• The Bill categorizes diversion options into three levels: Level one for the least onerous interventions (up to 3 months), Level two including restorative justice like family group conferences (3 to 6 months), and Level three for serious or repeat offenders (6 months or more, potentially including a residential element).
• A cost analysis by the Applied Fiscal Research Centre (AFREC) estimated that while government spending on diversion would increase by R15.5 million in a 'full scenario', the overall cost of child justice would drop from R675 million to R429 million per year, representing a saving of R247 million due to reduced use of custody.
• NICRO is the primary diversion provider, facilitating 16,211 programmes in 2001/2002, though access remains unequal; 73% of cases were processed in the Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Northern Cape, and Eastern Cape, while provinces comprising 45% of the population processed only 23.5% of cases.
• Evaluation of NICRO's programmes showed a cumulative re-offending rate where 7% of participants re-offended in the first 12 months and a further 10% re-offended by the 24-month mark.
• The SAYStOP programme for children accused of sexual offences was found to be useful for accountability and responsibility, with no interviewed children reporting sexual re-offending after completion.
• The DIME programme, combining music tuition and mentoring, resulted in parents reporting improvements in their child's self-concept, academic performance, and relationships, with only 3 out of 27 children re-offending during a six-month post-programme phase.

APA

Wood, C. (2003). Diversion in South Africa. Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/79.PDF

Chicago

Wood, Catherine. Diversion in South Africa. Institute for Security Studies, 2003. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/79.PDF.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Wood |first1=Catherine |title=Diversion in South Africa |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |date=October 2003 |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/79.PDF |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{wood2003diversion, author = {Wood, Catherine}, title = {{Diversion in South Africa}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {2003}, month = oct, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/79.PDF}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }