Crisis Intervention (a form of diversion)
| Date | 01 December 1978 |
| Author | John Harman |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455057802500403 |
| Published date | 01 December 1978 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
115
Crisis
Intervention
(a
form
of
diversion)
JOHN
HARMAN
THE
CONCEPT
of
diversion
of
offenders
has
its
roots
in
the
United
States.
The
practical
application
of
the
concept
has
usually
meant
the
substitu-
tion
of
rehabilitative
programmes
for
formal
court
proceedings.
Most
of
the
American
diversion
programmes
seem
to
be
aimed
at
young
offenders
in
the
belief
that
this
is
not
only
a
more
appropriate
method
of
dealing
with
juvenile
offenders
but
that
the
programmes
are
likely
to
be
more
effective
in
reducing
reconviction
rates,
and
the
rates
of
people
being
given
custodial
sentences.
Some
schemes
in
the
United
States
would
seem
to
indicate
limited
success
in
these
areas
The
chances
of
incorporating
this
type
of
scheme
easily
into
the
British
penal
system
seem,
at
first
glance,
to
be
very
slight.
Gaining
the
formal
co-operation
of
police
and
courts
in
programmes
which
would
selectively
help
some
offenders
rather
than
others
to
avoid
court
appearances
is
likely
to
be
very
difficult,
and
Mathieson,
writing
about
the
practical
application
of
diversion
in
Britain,2
feels
that
the
hardening
attitudes
of
the
public
against
all
types
of
offenders
may
mean
that
a
measure
which
seems
to
imply
the
upsetting
of
natural
justice
will
hardly
be
popular.
~’Yhereas
the
apparent
difficulties
inherent
in
adopting
the
American
model
of
diversion
in
Britain
should
not
prevent
further
consideration
of
such
schemes,
there
may
be
other
ways
in
which
the
Probation
Service
might
try
to
divert
more
people
from
custodial
sentences.
NACRO,
in
its
working
party
report
of
1975,
saw
diversion
in
terms
of
providing
social
work
intervention
for
people
who
were
the
subject
of
deferred
sentences
and
for
defendants
who
were
awaiting
sentence
or
trial
at
Crown
Courts.
The
object
of
this
intervention
would
be
to
indicate
to
the
court
that,
because
of
the
progress
made
by
the
defendant
during
the
period
of
re-
mand
or
deferment,
a
less
harsh,
and
non-custodial
sentence
could
be
imposed.
,
Specialist
team
The
Shefheld
Probation
Special
Projects
Team
(SPT),
composed
of
a
senior
probation
officers,
four
probation
officers,
an
ancillary
and
secretary,
discussed
the
possibilities
of
undertaking
a
diversion
project
in
1976,
and
decided
to
concentrate
on
working
with
defendants
awaiting
trial
or
sen-
tence
at
the
Crown
Court.
Numerically,
there
were
very
few
people
made
the
subject
of deferred
sentences
in
Shefl~eld,
and,
as
long
as
a
further
offence
was
not
committed,
experience
showed
that
a
custodial
sentence
was
most
unlikely
after
any
period
of
deferment.
The
majority
of
people
imprisoned
in
Shef~eld
were
sentenced
at
the
Crown
Court,
and,
because
the
Probation
Service
is
asked
to
become
involved
with
Crown
Court
defendants
generally,
because
of
the
preparation
of
social
inquiry
reports,
it
was
thought
that
this
was
the
most
appropriate
group
on
which
to
con-
centrate
the
efforts
of
the
SPT.
It
was
the
general
practice
of
Sheffield
probation
officers
to
become
involved
with
Crown
Court
defendants
only
after
committal
to
the
Crown
Court;
it
was
the
aim
of
the
SPT
to
increase
the
period
of
potential
contact
between
probation
officer
and
defendant
To continue reading
Request your trial