Police decision-making with young offenders: Examining barriers to the use of diversion options
| Author | Rebecca M Gray,Joanne Bryant,Rachael Green,Jake Rance,Sarah MacLean |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865819879736 |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Police decision-making with
young offenders: Examining
barriers to the use of
diversion options
Rachael Green
Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Richmond, Victoria, and
Jesuit Social Services, Richmond, Victoria, Australia
Rebecca M Gray, Joanne Bryant and
Jake Rance
University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South
Wales, Australia
Sarah MacLean
La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
Abstract
Youth justice policies in Australia feature an overall welfare-oriented approach and an empha-
sis on diverting young people away from the justice system. Nevertheless, some young
people, particularly those with complex needs, are incarcerated at a young age and are at
greater risk of poor outcomes. This paper explores barriers to the use of diversion options
by police through analysis of in-depth interviews with 25 police staff. Consistent with the
previous literature, role constraints, workload and lack of specialist knowledge were dis-
cussed. This paper explores the interplay of these factors with values, beliefs and expect-
ations about young offenders – many of which were framed by experiences of adversarial
encounters with young people and damag ed faith in the system to rehabilitate. Naturalistic
decision-making scholarship is drawn on to identify the potential role of ‘schemas’ in police
use of discretion and of practical strategies that may support welfare and rehabilitation-
oriented police practice with young people.
Corresponding author:
Rachael Green, Jesuit Social Services, Richmond, Victoria, Australia.
Email: rachael.green@jss.org.au
Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Criminology
2020, Vol. 53(1) 137–154
!The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0004865819879736
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Keywords
Discretion, diversion, naturalistic decision-making, policing, young people
Date received: 26 February 2019; accepted: 9 September 2019
Introduction
Numerous studies demonstrate that many young people in the justice system have mul-
tiple and complex needs (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2019;
Farrington, Gaffney, & Tfofi, 2017). For example, in Australia, of the 226 young people
who were in detention or on remand in Victoria in 2017: 70% reported that they were
victims of abuse, trauma or neglect; 65% reported that they had been previously
expelled or suspended from school and 82% reportedly offended when under the influ-
ence of alcohol, drugs or both (State of Victoria, 2018). Children in out-of-home care
are over-represented in the justice system (Gerard, McGrath, Colvin, & McFarlane,
2019) as are young people who have parents who are involved in the justice system
(Derzon, 2010; Murray, Farrington, & Sekol, 2012). Young offenders often co-present
with other complex issues such as mental distress (McClelland, Elkington, Teplin, &
Abram, 2004; Fougere, Thomas, & Daffern, 2013) and acquired brain injury
(Parsonage, 2016). A younger age of first involvement in the justice system is associated
with poorer outcomes including a higher likelihood of continued offending into adult-
hood (Chen, Matruglio, Weatherburn, & Hua, 2005; Loeber & Farrington, 2011).
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people (or ‘first Australians’) are 17
times more likely to spend time under supervision than non-first Australians (AIHW,
2017) and young men are over-represented in the justice system – as is the case
internationally.
Recidivism rates are persistently high among young people who receive punitive
justice interventions. However, 82% of young Australians who were released from
supervised detention in 2016–2017 returned within 12 months and 59% returned
within 6 months (AIHW, 2018). Outcomes for young people with involvement in the
criminal justice system include poor psychological well-being (McGrath &
Weatherburn, 2012), low involvement in training or employment and problematic sub-
stance use following incarceration (Welty et al., 2017). Justice system involvement is
associated with increased likelihood of future offending (Petitclerc, Gatti, Vitaro, &
Tremblay, 2013) and contact with the system can disrupt what is typically a ‘natural’
transition away from offending (McAra & McVie, 2011). Thus, incarceration seems to
compound offending, rather than providing alternative trajectories.
Consistent with the research, policy and policing guidelines in Australia highlight
that youth offending should be foremost treated as a welfare issue (Australian
Government, 2010). For many years, there has been a strong emphasis on diversion
away from the criminal justice system for low-level offences through the use of caution
and warning programmes, formal diversion programmes (e.g. education programmes,
restorative justice conferencing (RJC)) and the use of bail and bail support programmes
(Australian Law Reform Commission, 1997). Although evaluations investigating
138 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 53(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial