HONG KONG JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

香港社會科學學報

第一的第 59 期 (2022 春/夏) Vol. 59 Spring/Summer 2022

Open Access Article

A Project to Promote Juvenile Pretrial Diversion among Justice-Involved

Youths in Thailand: An Evaluation
Pornpen Traiphong1, Yutthapong Leelakitpaisarn2, Amphorn Sriprasertsuk3
1
Faculty of Social Sciences, Srinakharinwirot University, Sukhumvit Road Soi 23 Wattana District,
Bangkok, 10110, Thailand
2
School of Law and Politics, Suan Dusit University, Nakhon Ratchasima Road, Dusit District, Bangkok,
10300, Thailand
3
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Suan Dusit University, Nakhon Ratchasima Road, Dusit
District, Bangkok, 10300, Thailand

Received: March 6, 2022 ▪ Reviewed: May 9, 2022

▪ Accepted: June 5, 2022 ▪ Published: July 29, 2022

Abstract:
This research aimed to evaluate the Thai Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection (DJOP)'s Project to
Promote Juvenile Pretrial Diversion among Justice-Involved Youths in Thailand, specifically in the utilization and
application of the project's outputs and any impact it had on areas such as staff training, stakeholders’ awareness,
operational standards, and shifts in policy. Qualitative data was acquired through documentary research, in-depth
interviews with 20 informants, and focus group interviews with 18 youth justice practitioners. The data was
validated and analyzed using investigator and data source triangulation. Findings suggested that arrested juveniles
acquired several benefits by participating in the DJOP’s diversion program. Apart from giving young offenders
second chances and preserving the court's resources, advantages of the diversion program included an increase in
parents' or guardians’ involvement, more opportunities for victim participation and restitution, and a reduction in
recidivism. In addition, participating in family and community group conferencing (FCGC), a core activity in the
diversion process, decreased conflict among community members, promoted reintegration, and strengthened the
sense of responsibility and agency of young offenders and their parents. We identified three key factors for
successful diversion and reintegration: parents/caretakers’ capability and willingness to supervise their children, a
cooperative community, and the youth’s readiness and eagerness to abide by rehabilitative plans developed during
FCGC. Our study indicated that offender readiness was particularly crucial; most diversion attempts failed due to
the juveniles’ lack of self-motivation. This research contributed to the ongoing discussion about juvenile diversion
and restorative practices by providing the field with contextual findings specific to Thailand, much-needed
evidence, and recommendations regarding program integrity and real-world implementation of restorative concepts.
Suggestions on future project management and program evaluation were also discussed.

Keywords: program evaluation, young offender, juvenile justice, pretrial diversion, Thai youth justice system.

This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
 Traiphong et al. A Project to Promote Juvenile Pretrial Diversion among Justice-Involved Youths in Thailand: An Evaluation, Vol. 59
Spring/Summer 2022
56

泰国参与司法的青少年促进青少年审前分流的项目：评估

摘要：
本研究旨在评估泰国少年观察和保护部(DJOP)的项目，该项目旨在促进泰国参与司法的青少年的少年审前
分流，特别是在项目产出的利用和应用方面以及它对此类领域的任何影响。员工培训、利益相关者的意识
、运营标准和政策转变。定性数据是通过文献研究、对 20 名线人的深入访谈以及对 18 名青年司法从业者
的焦点小组访谈获得的。使用调查人员和数据源三角测量验证和分析数据。调查结果表明，被捕的青少年
通过参与 DJOP 的转移计划获得了多项好处。除了给年轻罪犯第二次机会和保留法院资源外，转移计划的优
势还包括增加父母或监护人的参与、更多的受害者参与和赔偿机会，以及减少累犯。此外，参与家庭和社
区小组会议（FCGC）这一转移过程中的核心活动，减少了社区成员之间的冲突，促进了重新融合，增强了
少年犯及其父母的责任感和能动性。我们确定了成功转移和重新融入的三个关键因素：父母/看护人监督孩
子的能力和意愿、合作社区，以及青少年愿意和渴望遵守 FCGC 期间制定的康复计划。我们的研究表明，犯
罪者的准备状态尤其重要；由于青少年缺乏自我激励，大多数转移尝试都失败了。这项研究通过为该领域
提供特定于泰国的背景调查结果、急需的证据以及有关项目完整性和恢复性概念的实际实施的建议，为正
在进行的关于青少年转移和恢复性实践的讨论做出了贡献。还讨论了对未来项目管理和项目评估的建议。

关键词：项目评估、少年犯、少年司法、审前分流、泰国青年司法系统。

1. Introduction labor-intensive nature (Research and Development

In the Thai juvenile justice system, diversion laws Institute, 2018).
and other alternatives to prosecution have been around This article presents findings from a 2021 study
for almost seven decades. Section 29 of Youth Justice commissioned by the DJOP to evaluate one of the
Procedures Act B.E. 2494 (1951) granted the power to agency's projects aiming to address the problem
divert young offenders accused of an offense mentioned above. The DJOP is the nation's major youth
punishable by a maximum of 5 years of imprisonment justice organization overseeing all of the country's
from traditional prosecution. However, due to the staff's juvenile detention centers, including 77 provincial
unfamiliarity with the concept and unclear instructions, JOPCs serving young offenders awaiting trial and 21
the juvenile diversion was left practically untouched juvenile training centers (JTCs) where juveniles with
until the Thai Department of Juvenile Observation and residential disposition reside. The department is also
Protection (DJOP), working under the similar Section responsible for all rehabilitative and educational
63 of the Establishment and Procedure of Juvenile and services provided within these facilities (Department of
Family Court B.E. 2534 (1991), noticed the legislation's Juvenile Observation and Protection, 2020a). As a
potential and explored means by which diversionary result, the department commissioned several studies and
measures could be implemented within the Thai research projects to explore new interventions and
juvenile justice system (Research and Development evaluate ongoing programs and policies to implement
Institute, 2018). The DJOP eventually studied New promising practices to improve the Thai youth justice
Zealand's Family Group Conferencing (FGC), made it a system. Among the agency-sponsored projects was the
mandatory procedure for pretrial diversion, and began Project to Promote Juvenile Pretrial Diversion among
training its staff and practitioners to facilitate successful Justice-Involved Youths in Thailand, whose main
FGCs (Department of Juvenile Observation and objective was to promote diversion and minimize
Protection, 2019). The DJOP is currently working under custodial measures for young offenders who met
Section 86 of the new Juvenile and Family Court and Section 86's referral criteria. After the project came to a
Procedures Act of B.E. 2553 (2010), essentially close, the DJOP saw a need for a follow-up study and
inheriting the same diversionary principles and appointed the authors to evaluate the project's impact on
introducing extra steps to add more clarification the agency's main missions and identify challenges or
regarding the objectives and procedures of pretrial points of concern about juvenile diversion.
diversion, ensuring transparent and inclusive decision-
making. As a result, the pretrial diversion program is 1.1. Thai Juvenile Justice System, Diversion, and
now an important part of the Thai youth justice system. Restorative Justice
However, despite official statistics confirming the The principles of the Thai criminal justice system
program's effectiveness in reducing re-offense rates and are heavily influenced by the trial and punishment of
the agency's commitment to promoting the program, the offenders (Junlakarn et al., 2013). Emphases on arrest,
overall referral rate was low due to its complex and prosecution, and imprisonment put a heavy burden on
 57

justice workers and the court, leading to many punishment of offenders, RJ shifts the criminal justice
problems, including long waiting time for defendants, system's paradigm toward relationships among
crowded prisons, and ineffective rehabilitation community members and damages resulting from
(Yampracha, 2016). Over-incarceration, especially that lawbreaking (Umbreit & Armour, 2010; Zehr, 2015).
of drug-related offenders, also leads to substandard According to Zehr (2015), the RJ process encourages
living conditions, disease transmission, and participants/stakeholders to ask three questions:
victimization of other inmates (Montasevee, 2017; 1. Who has been hurt, and how have they been hurt?
Sawasdipanich et al., 2018). Despite its inclination 2. What are their needs?
towards rehabilitation and reintegration, Thailand's 3. Who will participate in the restoration and
juvenile justice system faces less prominent but similar reconciliation and how?
challenges. Critics of youth incarceration have been RJ interventions primarily rely on conversations
asking whether keeping young offenders isolated from among stakeholders of criminal offenses: the offender,
the community during their periods of development is a the victim, both parties' families, community members,
plausible option despite the majority of the evidence and representatives from government agencies. The
pointing in the opposite direction (Cox, 2011). As a confrontation between victims and offenders, dialogues,
result, youth justice workers and researchers have been and agreements made during restorative conferences or
exploring ways to make Thai juvenile justice more mediating sessions not only motivate the offenders to
inclusive and tend to the needs of society and those who change their behavior (Livingstone et al., 2013;
come in contact with it. Meanwhile, attempts at keeping Sherman et al., 2015) but also tend to the victim's
correctional policies in compliance with research mental, physical, and financial needs (Choi et al.,
evidence and international guidelines eventually led to 2012). Family and Community Group Conference, an
exploring and adopting diversionary measures and their RJ model that originated in New Zealand and was
closely related concept of restorative justice (RJ) adopted by the DJOP due to its applicability and
(Wong et al., 2016). practicality among the juvenile population, also
Diversion and alternatives to formal prosecution and involves families and community members in
detention play a crucial role in youth justice systems addressing young offenders' behaviors (Children's
worldwide. Apart from lessening the justice system's Commissioner, 2017). Successful conferences and
burden by diverting less serious cases, diversionary promising rehabilitative results help alleviate the
measures provide justice officials with tools to facilitate criminal justice system's burden; they also empower the
community correction and rehabilitation, whose community, strengthen social bonds, and promote
effectiveness is strongly supported by evidence restorative culture and attitude.
(Thongyai, 2020). In addition, detention centers'
rehabilitative and educational services are considered 1.2. The DJOP's Pretrial Diversion Program
counterintuitive. Despite being treated with the best Unlike in New Zealand, where all youths who
programs available, detained juveniles are deprived of contact the justice system are automatically eligible for
real-world social interactions and life experiences an FGC, diversion opportunities in the Thai youth
needed for their age-appropriate development (Koyama, justice system are more limited. This is because Section
2012). Moreover, most rehabilitative programs have a 86 grants Directors of JOPCs the discretionary power to
rather low rate of program integrity, rendering them divert young offenders on the condition that they meet
ineffective in reducing recidivism (Farringer et al., the following criteria:
2021). Therefore, most of the world's justice systems 1. The offense of which the juvenile is accused must
have incorporated mechanisms that allow officials to be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment not
divert juvenile offenders at different stages throughout exceeding five years, except for offenses committed
their journeys within the justice system. For Thailand, through negligence or petty offenses;
examples of such legislation are Section 73 1 of Thai 2. The juvenile has never been sentenced to
Penal Code, and Section 90 2 and 1323 of the Juvenile imprisonment unless the sentence was due to a
and Family Court and Procedures Act of B.E. 2553 misdemeanor or confinement instead of a fine;
(2010) (Kanarak et al., 2019). For the DJOP, the 3. The juvenile must show a sense of remorse before
diversionary power is granted by Section 86 of the prosecution;
Juvenile and Family Court Act. 4. After the juvenile's age, past record, behavior,
Unlike retributive justice, which deals with the intellect, education and training, health and mental
conditions, occupation, socio-economic status, and
1
Section 73 allows police officers to give warnings to young other reasons related to the offense are taken into
offenders and their parents/guardians without formal prosecution. consideration, the Directors of the JOPCs believe that
2
Section 90 of the Juvenile and Family Court Act allows the court the juvenile might reform themselves without the need
to divert young offenders accused of committing an offense
punishable by a maximum of 20-year imprisonment. for criminal prosecution.
3
Section 132 is essentially a pre-adjudication diversion and consists When a juvenile accused of a criminal offense is
of 2 clauses. The first clause allows the court to order conditional taken into custody, he will be assigned a probation
releases similar to probation. The second clause grants the court officer as his case manager. The probation officer will
power to issue detention orders to keep young offenders in detention
until they are aged 20.
conduct a social inquiry interview and prepare a pre-
 Traiphong et al. A Project to Promote Juvenile Pretrial Diversion among Justice-Involved Youths in Thailand: An Evaluation, Vol. 59
Spring/Summer 2022
58
sentence report if needed. The youth's eligibility for offense rate and characteristics of diverted young
diversion will then be considered. Once the young offenders, were very insightful and valuable for
offender meets the referral criteria, their case will be academic and administrative purposes.
presented to the JOPC's Multidisciplinary Committee The project's first phase consisted mainly of
and the JOPC's director, who will then give final statistical evaluation regarding the number and success
approval. A qualified facilitator will then start arranging rate of DJOP's pretrial diversion scheme. As mentioned
an FCGC by contacting prospective FCGC participants, in the previous section, juvenile diversionary laws were
including the offender, victims if available, and both present since the Act of 1991, though its procedures
parties' friends or family members. Invitations may also were not clarified until the 2010 Act came into effect.
extend to community members, police representatives, Unclear directions and unfamiliarity with the concepts
and local criminal prosecutors if the facilitator sees fit of diversion and RJ among practitioners resulted in
(Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection, fluctuations in referral rates during the years. During
2020b). the fiscal year 2006-2011, 16,668 young offenders went
On the day of the conference, participants take a turn through DJOP's diversion program. A sharp decline
telling their side of the story, starting with the young quickly followed; only 3,224 juveniles were diverted
offender, who will describe the incident in detail. The during the fiscal year 2010-20164. The ‘great decrease’
conference ends with participants creating a was often attributed to shifting priorities and policies of
rehabilitative plan containing conditions with which the different DJOP executives, who were required to
young offender and their family must comply. The transfer to a new agency once every few years
conditions may include community service hours, (Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection,
restitution payment, curfews, or simply going back to 2019).
school without committing any more offense. When the Initial evaluation of the project during the second
juvenile completes the agreed-upon plan without phase revealed quite promising results. During the fiscal
committing another offense or significant technical year 2016, only 2.03 percent of eligible young offenders
violations, the facilitator will notify the local proceeded through the diversionary scheme. The
Prosecutor's office to drop the charge (Krungkanjana, percentage rose to 13.03, 33.76, and 35.05 in the fiscal
2017). Otherwise, their case will be re-opened, and they years 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. Meanwhile,
will then move through normal juvenile justice the number of young offenders who complied with the
proceedings. conditions in their rehabilitative plans reduced, along
with the percentage of charges dropped by public
1.3. The Project prosecutors. In 2016, around 95 percent of juveniles
The Project to Promote Juvenile Pretrial Diversion successfully complied with their conditional
among Justice-Involved Youths in Thailand aimed to agreements, and all of them got their charges dropped.
raise awareness and promote the use of pretrial On the other hand, during the following year (2017),
diversion through RJ and FCGC among DJOP's staff when the project's impacts were being realized, only 80
members and stakeholders in the community. Other percent of referred young offenders completed their
objectives included developing tools, manuals, and agreed-upon terms, and only 97.79 percent of them
guidelines to assist front-line workers in referring and received non-prosecution orders.
facilitating restorative justice conferences for young During the third phase, a comprehensive, nationwide
offenders. The project, which took place from June to evaluation was conducted to determine the effectiveness
December of 2016 and consists of 3 phases, initiated the of the DJOP's work on pretrial diversion and the
development and commencement of multiple tools, project's ability to fulfill its objectives. The agency's
policies, and initiatives. Among the project's most statistics revealed that from a total of 5,997 young
important achievements were developing and offenders who were given the opportunities to
publishing the DJOP's Manual on Pre-Trial Diversion. participate in the diversion program, 98.93 percent were
The DJOP's revised strategies also demonstrated the able to successfully create a rehabilitative plan and
agency's attempt to promote pretrial diversion by obtain agreements from all stakeholders, including
including community corrections, victim protection and victims and their families. When the plans were
reconciliation, and alternatives to detention in their 2 presented to public prosecutors, they approved almost
out of 4 Core Strategies (Department of Juvenile all (99.56 percent) of the plans. However, of that
Observation and Protection, 2020a). To further number, only 77.84 percent of young offenders
encourage referral, the DJOP introduced a new Key successfully complied with the terms in their individual
Performance Index (KPI) for JOPCs to monitor the plans, and the public prosecutors issued non-
ratio of young offenders who pass referral criteria to prosecution orders to only 81.62 percent of those who
those who participate in FCGCs. Despite some abided by the terms. The data shows that the project
challenges, the policy was considered successful as the impacted the diversion program's referral rate; however,
referral rate for pretrial diversion rose significantly
compared to the previous period. Meanwhile, the
4
statistics collected from the policy, including the re- The overlap was due to the transition from the 1991 Act to the
revised 2010 Act.
 59

quantitative data provides us with only one side of the pilot study, another within the Bangkok Metropolitan
picture. During the agency's evaluation of the 3 phases, Region that was not in the pilot phase, and one site
it was unclear which factors played a major role in the from each of Thailand's four regions: the North, the
project's success in boosting the referral rate. South, the Northeast, and the East. For each site, three
Meanwhile, there are still investigations to be made interviewees were selected. Each group comprised the
regarding the inverse relationships between the rates of JOPC's Head Probation Officer, one of the JOPC's
referral and the successful completion of the probation officers, and an FCGC facilitator. A 16-
rehabilitative plan. Still, the number of diverted cases person focus group interview was conducted remotely
was notably higher than before the project, and the via Zoom due to limitations from government-issued
overall recidivism rate fell. A study commissioned by COVID-19 prevention measures. The interviews were
the DJOP to compare the recidivism rates among recorded on Zoom's cloud.
juveniles who went through three diversionary To aid the data collection and ensure consistency
measures, the DJOP's pretrial diversion, a pretrial among investigators, we created three sets of tools: a set
alternative under the Juvenile and Family Court's of guiding questions for an in-depth interview with
discretion, and the court's pre-adjudication diversion, DJOP's officers, executives, practitioners, and staff who
revealed that only 9.52 percent of juveniles who went implemented the project's findings; a set of questions
through the DJOP's diversion program recidivated three for ex-offenders, parents, and guardians; and a
years after their respective non-prosecution order was guideline for a focus group interview. Research design
given. After the project's three phases came to a close, and tools had been officially approved by DJOP's
the DJOP wanted to conduct an overall evaluation to Research and Development Committee and reviewed by
determine the extent to which the results and knowledge the Institutional Review Board of Mahachulalongkorn
acquired during the project were utilized and their University for their adherence to proper research ethics.
impact on the agency's mission.
3. Findings
2. Methodology The data from interviews and documentary review
This study used multiple qualitative data collection provided us with findings in four different areas,
methods to capture the multifaceted nature of the namely in the steps and processes of the project, the
project's outcomes and their implementation, especially utilization of the project's outputs, the impact of the
the perspectives of practitioners and any challenges project on the department, and challenges or obstacles
they might have faced during the project. The methods against the project's impacts and outcomes. Regarding
include documentary research and in-depth and focus the project's processes and protocols, the study
group interviews. The data was then validated using suggested that the list of FCGCs participants designated
investigator and data source triangulation to ensure by the DJOP was appropriate and contributed to
accuracy and develop a more comprehensive picture of successful conferences and completion of each young
the project's impact. Official documents, policy papers, offender's individual rehabilitation plan. The list of
project reports, and statistics published during each viable FCGC participants included young offenders and
project phase were collected and analyzed. After a few their victims; both parties' parents, guardians, or
meetings and consultations with the DJOP's executives, supporters; facilitators; social workers or clinical
experts, project coordinators, and staff involved in the psychologists; probation officers/case managers;
original project, an evaluative framework for the project representatives from the local police force;
and a data collection plan were developed. After the representatives from the local Prosecutor's Offices; and
approval of subjects of study and sites, interviewees community leaders or representatives from related
were separately contacted to make arrangements for agencies/organizations.
interview sessions. Regarding utilizing the project's results and outputs,
For in-depth interviews, we identified key which include a handbook on juvenile pretrial
stakeholders who were either directly involved with the diversion, subject-related media including videos and
project's operation or responsible for implementing and prints, and collaboration among related agencies, we
monitoring policies and guidelines created during the found that the project's products were adopted and used
project. The group consisted of Directors of JOPCs, widely and effectively. The handbook provided clear
representatives from DJOP's Litigation and and concise objectives, history, instructions, criteria,
Investigation Development Division, ex-offenders, and and tips on diversion procedures to practitioners, who,
their parents or guardians. Twenty interviewees were through multiple interviews, enthusiastically expressed
selected using multistage sampling; we initially set a their satisfaction with the handbook. Some staff assured
representative quota from each type of interview that the handbook contributed to their better
subjects and purposively selected the samples by understanding of the concept and increased their young
considering their availability and relevance to our offender assessment and referral capabilities.
research questions. Conversations with DJOP's officers also revealed that
For focus groups, 6 JOPCs are selected through the project performed well in raising awareness among
multistage sampling. With recommendations from the practitioners; when asked, most respondents could tell
department, we picked one site that was in the project's key objectives of diversion, which are to conserve the
 Traiphong et al. A Project to Promote Juvenile Pretrial Diversion among Justice-Involved Youths in Thailand: An Evaluation, Vol. 59
Spring/Summer 2022
60
court's resources while giving second chances to young qualitative data from documents, focus groups, and in-
offenders. The diversion process, especially the FCGC, depth interviews, provided us with valuable insight,
also increased parents' or caregivers' involvement and particularly into utilizing the project's outputs and their
sense of responsibility. For victims, it was apparent that impacts on the DJOP. Findings, tools, and procedures
after the completion of conferences and individual developed under the project were properly utilized and
rehabilitative plans, the victims usually get fulfilled the project's objectives. The evidence can be
compensations, apologies, or any other requests deemed observed from coherence in work procedures,
appropriate by the participants of the conferences. The practitioners, the projects' target groups, benefits,
involvement of young offenders' and victims' findings, and challenges, along with policy
communities also made them acknowledge the youth's recommendations and development guidelines. Our
intention to reform, resulting in less conflict and findings also suggested that the project's outputs and
smoother reintegration. impact can be extended and utilized as a springboard to
The project also has a far-reaching impact on the encourage community involvement in the reintegration,
agency as a whole. As reflected in official statistics, rehabilitation, and development of juveniles in conflict
more young offenders were referred to the department's with the law. Our discovery was consistent with
diversion program following the completion of the Bertrand et al.'s (2009) definition of program or project
project's phases. The recidivism rate of this particular evaluation that it refers to the assessment using the
cohort was significantly lower compared to other types project's premises, such as its scope of work, basic
of intervention. This undoubtedly improved the DJOP's procedures, and monitoring, along with its activities to
image in the eyes of the public, reassuring the agency's determine the project's effectiveness, benefits, and
capability to transform delinquent youths and guidelines for improvement. Rutgers and IPPF (2013)
eventually led to several collaborations among related also argue that research is a crucial part of any project's
agencies with similar objectives. Public recognition also monitoring and evaluation due to its ability to shed light
boosted staff morale; many interviewees showed clear on factors contributing to the project's success or
signs of joy during recollections of their success stories, failure.
taking pride in their services to young offenders, In addition to the benefits of adhering to research
victims, and the community. One of DJOP principles to ensure the project's success and
Headquarters' members of staff even pointed out that effectiveness, Sriarunsawang and Chua-Hom (2015)
the diversion program, with FCGC at its core, has the also pointed out that project management is another key
potential to thwart conflicts, improve harmony among to the best project outcomes. According to
community members, and eventually transform the Thai Kaejornnanda (2008), project management is a process
youth justice system. Based on the project's findings, in which the project's goal-oriented activities are set
one of the department's efforts to keep this favorable along with monitoring methods to ensure steady
momentum included adopting diversion-related tasks as progress, adherence to the plan, and proper allocation of
its KPI to ensure that its practitioners properly and monetary and human resources. With this in mind,
enthusiastically refer deserving young offenders to the project evaluators can assess three aspects of a project:
pretrial measure. its efficiency, effectiveness, and impact (Sriarunsawang
Despite promising results, our study revealed certain & Chua-Hom, 2015).
challenges in optimal utilization of the project's findings Regarding the evaluation of the DJOP's project, the
and outputs. The rise in case number proves to be a findings suggested that it was conducted using proper
heavy burden on JOPCs' resources, especially with the research ethics and guidelines, and its findings and
time-intensive and complex nature of FCGC. outputs created the desired impacts listed within the
Facilitators, usually one officer per JOPC, need to project's objectives. As a result, the community has
contact multiple individuals to ensure that all received numerous benefits from DJOP's work. After
participants can attend the conference on a designated participating in the agency's diversionary measures,
date. A shift towards online conferences, the major young offenders received the second chances they
aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, might make deserved and stopped reoffending. The years after the
meetings more convenient; however, several project completion also showed an increase in diversion
practitioners expressed their concerns about the referrals and a fall in recidivism among diverted
effectiveness and reliability of virtual encounters. In juveniles. This result was well-received by the public
FCGC, face-to-face interactions were already proven to and, apart from providing local communities with
have significant emotional and transformative effects on similar guidelines on conflict resolution, had led to
young offenders and victims. Despite these challenges, collaborations with several related agencies from the
our informants were still confident about the diversion public and private sectors. Positive outcomes also
program, pointing out that giving young offenders extended to the department's staff; officers who worked
opportunities to reform is always worthwhile. closely with diverted juveniles reported being more
confident and happier about their work. Results from
4. Discussion this follow-up study were consistent with Bertrand et
The evaluation of DJOP's project, conducted using al.'s (2009) definition of a follow-up study, which stated
 61

that follow-ups or evaluation is a basic management offenders and their parents or guardians.
tool to ensure that any outcomes or impacts observed For the DJOP's pretrial diversion program, staff
truly resulted from the project's activities. Project training and knowledge sharing are among the most
evaluation is also a key to determining the project's important means to ensure program integrity and
fulfillment of its initial objectives and efficient use of effectiveness. Front-line practitioners, especially
its resources, with the ultimate goal of improving its facilitators, should receive regular training and be
overall integrity and any subsequent projects of similar equipped with skills and knowledge that are up-to-date
nature. Our findings also conformed to Klaisuban's and based on evidence. Apart from proper procedures
(2018) study on the development of educational and theoretical knowledge about FCGC and restorative
supporting networks for Southern youths, which argues justice, facilitators should also be trained in conflict
that four factors lead to a project's impacts: an resolution and persuasion techniques, which are crucial,
experienced researcher who regularly exchanges especially in encounters like FCGCs. In addition, due to
knowledge and best practices with stakeholders, an the diverse nature of each community's culture and
executive who values and encourages self-development attitude on conflicts and wrongdoing, constant
of staff, a motivated front-line practitioner, and a exchange of knowledge and best practices among staff
supportive collaborative network with private and across jurisdictions should be able to provide
organizations. A study on the successful execution of facilitators and practitioners with contextual knowledge
the LLEN study proposed the fifth factor: effective necessary for successful conferences. Community
management within the Thailand Research Fund (TRF), outreach projects and stakeholder information sessions
specifically in the establishment of a steering committee should also be emphasized; since FCGC and RJ require
and an effective knowledge management system. The high understanding and cooperation from communities,
TRF is a government agency in charge of financial it is in local JOPCs' interests to provide stakeholders
support to Thai researchers. and community members with relevant information
regarding the pretrial diversion opportunity. The spread
5. Conclusion of COVID-19 has also introduced new challenges,
Diversion and RJ are among the most studied topics especially for FCGC relying on interactions among
in juvenile justice, with numerous program evaluations participants as agents of behavioral changes. For
using various methodologies. This study adds to the example, practitioners have been more reluctant to refer
expanding body of literature by providing research eligible cases due to health concerns, and facilitators
findings in the Thai context. In Thailand, despite have expressed worries about using remote conference
diversion and RJ's long legal history and conceptual technologies in place of face-to-face meetings.
understanding, their application and implementation in Therefore, the DJOP has to explore alternatives and
youth justice were considerably more recent. The DJOP create COVID-relevant guidelines for its pretrial
has noticed fluctuations in the referral and recidivism diversion program so that the agency can keep
rates of young offenders who went through their pretrial providing young offenders with chances to reform.
diversion program and has been allocating a significant
number of resources for it through multiple projects 6. Limitations and Further Studies
during the past few years. Our study was among the Major challenges of the present study include time;
first government-sponsored evaluations that attempted the project itself was completed almost five years ago,
to measure the impacts and outcomes of the pretrial making the identification of stakeholders for data
diversion projects using project management collection and recollection of events for participants
frameworks. significantly harder. Another limitation is the study
Through the data collection and analyses, we design: the data gathered in this study are narrative and
concluded that the DJOP's Project to Promote Juvenile descriptive. Therefore, despite being able to make
Pretrial Diversion among Justice-Involved Youths in qualitative implications of the project's impacts and
Thailand was properly conducted. Utilizing the project's outcomes, study results regarding the proper budget
findings and outcomes provided the community and the allocation and its financial value are still lacking.
department with multiple benefits as intended. Further studies might aim to complete the picture by
However, despite successful implementation and utilizing quantitative research designs. Regarding
positive impacts, further steps can be taken to improve improving the agency's project management and
the procedure's integrity, effectiveness, and swiftness, evaluation, similar frameworks can be applied to more
from referral until the young offender completes their recent projects in a timelier manner to establish a cause-
customized conditional rehabilitative plan. and-effect relationship and reflect actual project impact
Regarding project management, steps can be taken and outcomes.
to ensure proper knowledge management so that both
positive and negative insights learned during different Acknowledgments
phases of the project can be transferred to future This research was sponsored by the Department of
activities. In addition, involvement from different Juvenile Observation and Protection, Thailand, in the
parties should be encouraged, especially from the fiscal year 2021.
agency's clients and target population, including young
 Traiphong et al. A Project to Promote Juvenile Pretrial Diversion among Justice-Involved Youths in Thailand: An Evaluation, Vol. 59
Spring/Summer 2022
62
Asian criminology. New York: Springer, pp. 309–
Authors’ Contributions 326. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5218-8_20
Pornpen Traiphong is the lead researcher responsible [10] KAEJORNNANDA, N. (2008). Organizational
for developing the thematic framework, conducting data Behaviors. V Print.
analysis, writing reports, and general management of [11] KANARAK, N., PRAPANNETIWUT, P., &
the project. Amphorn Sriprasertsuk is responsible for SUKMAK, K. (2019). Legal problems and obstacles
the literature review, and Yutthapong Leelakitpaisarn - relating to rehabilitation measures in lieu of
for conducting focus group and in-depth interviews. judgments under Juvenile and Family Court and
Juvenile and Family Case Procedure Act B.E. 2553
(2010). Journal of Education and Social
References Development , 14(2), 148–158.
[1] BERTRAND, A., BEAUVY-SANY, M.,
[12] KLAISUBAN, J. (2018). The Evaluation of
CILIMKOVIC, S., CONKLIN, S., & JAHIC, S.
Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts of the Local
(2009). Monitoring and evaluation for youth
Learning Enrichment Network (LLEN) Program of
workforce development project. The SEEP Network.
Children and Teenagers in the Southern Area.
Retrieved from
Journal of Education Research, 13(1), 15-32.
https://businessdocbox.com/93009304-
[13] KOYAMA, P.R. (2012). The status of education in
Human_Resources/Monitoring-and-evaluation-for-
pretrial juvenile detention. Journal of Correctional
youth-workforce-development-projects-technical-
Education, 63(1), 35-68.
note-youth-and-workforce-development-plp-
[14] KRUNGKANJANA, S. (2017). Role of Thai
technical-note.html
public prosecutors in criminal justice administration.
[2] CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER. (2017). Family
Social Science Asia, 3(1), 53–58. Retrieved from
group conferences: Still New Zealand’s gift to the
https://socialscienceasia.nrct.go.th/index.php/SSAsia
world? Wellington: Office of the Children’s
/article/view/12
Commissioner. Retrieved from
[15] LIVINGSTONE, N., MACDONALD, G., &
https://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads/OCC-SOC-
CARR, N. (2013). Restorative justice conferencing
Dec-2017-Companion-Piece.pdf
for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7
[3] CHOI, J.J., BAZEMORE, G., & GILBERT, M.J.
to 21). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2,
(2012). Review of research on victims’ experiences
CD008898.
in restorative justice: Implications for youth justice.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008898.pub2
Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 35–42.
[16] MONTASEVEE, K. (2017). Examining the nature
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.011
of aggressive behaviour in Thai male prisoners and
[4] COX, A. (2011). Doing the programme or doing
factors that contribute to its aetiology. Doctoral
me? The pains of youth imprisonment. Punishment
thesis, University of Birmingham. Retrieved from
& Society, 13(5), 592–610.
https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/8005
https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474511422173
[17] RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
[5] DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE OBSERVATION
INSTITUTE. (2018). Final report on the Project to
AND PROTECTION. (2019). The Second Advisor
Increase the Use of Diversionary Measure for Young
and Working Group Meeting Report on Increasing
Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System. Project
the Use of Diversionary Measures in Juvenile in
report, Department of Juvenile Observation and
Conflict with the Law Project. Department of
Protection, Thailand.
Juvenile Observation and Protection.
[18] RUTGERS AND IPPF. (2013). Explore: Toolkit
[6] DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE OBSERVATION
for Involving Young People as Researchers in
AND PROTECTION. (2020a). 3-year action plan
Sexual and Reproductive Health Programmes.
(2020-2022).
Retrieved from http://www.rutgers.international/our-
[7] DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE OBSERVATION
products/tools/explore
AND PROTECTION. (2020b). Pretrial diversion
[19] SAWASDIPANICH, N., PUEKTES, S.,
manual. 2nd ed. Department of Juvenile Observation
WANNASUNTAD, S., SRIYAPORN, A.,
and Protection.
CHAWMATHAGIT, C., SINTUNAYA, J., &
[8] FARRINGER, A.J., DURIEZ, S.A., MANCHAK,
PAUNGSAWAD, G. (2018). Development of
S.M., & SULLIVAN, C.C. (2021). Adherence to
healthcare facility standards for Thai female
“what works”: Examining trends across 14 years of
inmates. International Journal of Prisoner Health,
correctional program assessment. Corrections, 6(4),
14(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-07-
269–287.
2017-0032
https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2019.1659193
[20] SHERMAN, L.W., STRANG, H., MAYO-
[9] JUNLAKARN, L.D., BORIBOONTHANA, Y., &
WILSON, E., WOODS, D.J., & ARIEL, B. (2015).
SANGKHANATE, A. (2013). Contemporary crime
Are restorative justice conferences effective in
and punishment in Thailand. In: LIU, J.,
reducing repeat offending? Findings from a
HEBENTON, B., & JOU, S. (eds.) Handbook of
Campbell systematic review. Journal of Quantitative
 63

Criminology, 31(1), 1–24. 。第 2 版。少年观察和保护部。

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9222-9 [8] FARRINGER, A.J., DURIEZ, S.A., MANCHAK,
[21] SRIARUNSAWANG, C., & CHUA-HOM, C. S.M. 和 SULLIVAN, C.C.（2021 年）。坚持“什
(2015). Basic principles on key performance index
么有效”：检查 14 年惩教计划评估的趋势。更正
and evaluation. Retrieved from
http://203.155.220.230/info/Plan/planUp/p_9.pdf ， 6 （ 4 ） ， 269-287 。
[22] THONGYAI, P. (2020). Diversion: A comparative https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2019.1659193
study of pretrial diversion schemes in Thailand and [9] JUNLAKARN, L.D., BORIBOONTHANA, Y., &
England. Thammasart Law Journal, 49(4), 727–753. SANGKHANATE, A. (2013)。泰国当代犯罪与惩
[23] UMBREIT, M., & ARMOUR, M.P. (2010). 罚。在：LIU, J., HEBENTON, B., & JOU, S. (编
Restorative justice as a social movement. In: 辑。) 亚洲犯罪学手册。纽约：施普林格，第
ARMOUR, M., & UMBREIT, M. (eds.) Restorative 309-326 页 。 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-
justice dialogue. Springer, pp. 1–34. 5218-8_20
https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826122599.0001 [10] 凯约南达，N. (2008)。组织行为。五打印。
[24] WONG, J.S., BOUCHARD, J., GRAVEL, J.,
[11] KANARAK, N., PRAPANNETIWUT, P., &
BOUCHARD, M., & MORSELLI, C. (2016). Can
SUKMAK, K. (2019)。与替代少年和家庭法院和
at-risk youth be diverted from crime? A meta-
analysis of restorative diversion programs. Criminal 少年和家庭案件程序法乙.乙.下的判决的康复措
Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1310–1329. 施有关的法律问题和障碍。2553 (2010)。教育与
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816640835 社会发展杂志，14（2），148-158。
[25] YAMPRACHA, S. (2016). Understanding Thai [12] 克莱苏班，J.（2018 年）。南部地区儿童和青
sentencing culture. Doctoral thesis, University of 少年地方学习丰富网络(伦)计划的产出、成果和
Strathclyde. https://doi.org/10.48730/GFFB-5218
影响的评估。教育研究杂志，13（1），15-32。
[26] ZEHR, H. (2015). Changing lenses: Restorative
justice for our times. Harrisonburg, Virginia: Herald [13] 小山，P.R. (2012)。审前少年拘留中的教育状
Press. 况。惩教杂志，63（1），35-68。
[14] KRUNGKANJANA, S. (2017)。泰国检察官在刑
事司法管理中的作用。亚洲社会科学，3（1），
参考文: 53-58 。 取 自
[1] BERTRAND, A. 、 BEAUVY-SANY, M. 、 https://socialscienceasia.nrct.go.th/index.php/SSAsia
CILIMKOVIC, S. 、CONKLIN, S. 和 JAHIC, S. /article/view/12
(2009)。青年劳动力发展项目的监测和评估。渗 [15] 利文斯顿，N.，麦克唐纳，G.，和 卡尔，N.（
透 网 络 。 取 自 2013 年）。为减少年轻罪犯（7 至 21 岁）的累
https://businessdocbox.com/93009304- 犯而召开的恢复性司法会议。科克伦系统评价数
Human_Resources/Monitoring-and-evaluation-for- 据 库 ， 2 ， CD008898 。
youth-workforce-development-projects-technical-
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008898.pub2
note-youth-and-workforce-development-plp-
[16] 蒙塔塞维，K.（2017 年）。检查泰国男性囚犯
technical-note.html
[2] 儿童事务专员。（2017）。家庭小组会议：仍然 攻击性行为的性质以及导致其病因的因素。博士
是新西兰给世界的礼物吗？惠灵顿：儿童事务专 论 文 ， 伯 明 翰 大 学 。 取 自
https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/8005
员 办 公 室 。 取 自
[17] 研究与开发学院。（2018 年）。关于在少年司
https://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads/OCC-SOC-
Dec-2017-Companion-Piece.pdf 法系统中增加对少年犯使用转移措施的项目的最
[3] CHOI, J.J., BAZEMORE, G., & GILBERT, M.J. 终报告。泰国青少年观察和保护部项目报告。
(2012)。对受害者在恢复性司法中的经历的研究 [18] 罗格斯和 IPPF。（2013）。探索：让年轻人作
回顾：对青年司法的影响。儿童和青少年服务评 为研究人员参与性和生殖健康计划的工具包。取
论 ， 34 （ 1 ） ， 35-42 。 自 http://www.rutgers.international/our-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.011 products/tools/explore
[4] 考克斯，A.（2011 年）。做节目还是做我？少 [19] SAWASDIPANICH, N., PUEKTES, S.,
年囚禁之痛。惩罚与社会，13（5），592-610。 WANNASUNTAD, S., SRIYAPORN, A.,
CHAWMATHAGIT, C., SINTUNAYA, J., &
https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474511422173
PAUNGSAWAD, G. (2018)。为泰国女性囚犯制
[5] 未成年人观察保护司。（2019）。第二次顾问和
工作组会议报告关于在少年违法项目中增加使用 定医疗保健设施标准。国际囚犯健康杂志，14（
分流措施。少年观察和保护部。 3 ） ， 163–174 。 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-07-
2017-0032
[6] 未成年人观察保护司。（2020 一个）。三年行
[20] SHERMAN, L.W., STRANG, H., MAYO-
动计划（2020-2022）。 WILSON, E., WOODS, D.J. 和 ARIEL, B. (2015)
[7] 少年观察与保护司。（2020b）。审前转移手册
 Traiphong et al. A Project to Promote Juvenile Pretrial Diversion among Justice-Involved Youths in Thailand: An Evaluation, Vol. 59
Spring/Summer 2022
64
。恢复性司法会议在减少重复犯罪方面是否有效 https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826122599.0001
？坎贝尔系统评价的结果。定量犯罪学杂志，31 [24] WONG, J.S.、BOUCHARD, J.、GRAVEL, J.、
（1），1-24。https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014- BOUCHARD, M. 和 MORSELLI, C.（2016 年）
9222-9 。高危青年能否摆脱犯罪？ 恢复性转移计划的荟
[21] SRIARUNSAWANG, C., & CHUA-HOM, C. 萃 分 析 。 刑 事 司 法 和 行 为 ， 43 （ 10 ） ， 1310-
(2015)。关键绩效指标与评价的基本原则。取自 1329。https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816640835
http://203.155.220.230/info/Plan/planUp/p_9.pdf [25] YAMPRACHA, S. (2016)。了解泰国的量刑文化
[22] 通亚，P. (2020)。分流：泰国和英国审前分流 。 博 士 论 文 ， 思 克 莱 德 大 学 。
计划的比较研究。国政法律杂志，49(4)，727– https://doi.org/10.48730/GFFB-5218
753。 [26] ZEHR, H. (2015)。改变镜头：我们时代的恢复
[23] UMBREIT, M., & ARMOUR, M.P.（2010）。恢 性正义。弗吉尼亚州哈里森堡：先驱出版社。
复 性 正 义 作为 一 种社 会运 动 。 在 ： ARMOUR,
M., & UMBREIT, M. (编辑。) 恢复性司法对话。
施 普 林 格 ， 第 1-34 页 。