A Project to Promote Juvenile Pretrial Diversion among Justice-Involved Youths in Thailand: An Evaluation

Pornpen Traiphong, Yutthapong Leelakitpaisarn, Amphorn Sriprasertsuk


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.

Full Text:



BERTRAND, A., BEAUVY-SANY, M., CILIMKOVIC, S., CONKLIN, S., & JAHIC, S. (2009). Monitoring and evaluation for youth workforce development project. The SEEP Network. Retrieved from https://businessdocbox.com/93009304-Human_Resources/Monitoring-and-evaluation-for-youth-workforce-development-projects-technical-note-youth-and-workforce-development-plp-technical-note.html

CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER. (2017). Family group conferences: Still New Zealand’s gift to the world? Wellington: Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Retrieved from https://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads/OCC-SOC-Dec-2017-Companion-Piece.pdf

CHOI, J.J., BAZEMORE, G., & GILBERT, M.J. (2012). Review of research on victims’ experiences in restorative justice: Implications for youth justice. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.011

COX, A. (2011). Doing the programme or doing me? The pains of youth imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13(5), 592–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474511422173

DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE OBSERVATION AND PROTECTION. (2019). The Second Advisor and Working Group Meeting Report on Increasing the Use of Diversionary Measures in Juvenile in Conflict with the Law Project. Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection.

DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE OBSERVATION AND PROTECTION. (2020a). 3-year action plan (2020-2022).

DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE OBSERVATION AND PROTECTION. (2020b). Pretrial diversion manual. 2nd ed. Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection.

FARRINGER, A.J., DURIEZ, S.A., MANCHAK, S.M., & SULLIVAN, C.C. (2021). Adherence to “what works”: Examining trends across 14 years of correctional program assessment. Corrections, 6(4), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2019.1659193

JUNLAKARN, L.D., BORIBOONTHANA, Y., & SANGKHANATE, A. (2013). Contemporary crime and punishment in Thailand. In: LIU, J., HEBENTON, B., & JOU, S. (eds.) Handbook of Asian criminology. New York: Springer, pp. 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5218-8_20

KAEJORNNANDA, N. (2008). Organizational Behaviors. V Print.

KANARAK, N., PRAPANNETIWUT, P., & SUKMAK, K. (2019). Legal problems and obstacles relating to rehabilitation measures in lieu of judgments under Juvenile and Family Court and Juvenile and Family Case Procedure Act B.E. 2553 (2010). Journal of Education and Social Development , 14(2), 148–158.

KLAISUBAN, J. (2018). The Evaluation of Outputs, Outcomes and Impacts of the Local Learning Enrichment Network (LLEN) Program of Children and Teenagers in the Southern Area. Journal of Education Research, 13(1), 15-32.

KOYAMA, P.R. (2012). The status of education in pretrial juvenile detention. Journal of Correctional Education, 63(1), 35-68.

KRUNGKANJANA, S. (2017). Role of Thai public prosecutors in criminal justice administration. Social Science Asia, 3(1), 53–58. Retrieved from https://socialscienceasia.nrct.go.th/index.php/SSAsia/article/view/12

LIVINGSTONE, N., MACDONALD, G., & CARR, N. (2013). Restorative justice conferencing for reducing recidivism in young offenders (aged 7 to 21). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, CD008898. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008898.pub2

MONTASEVEE, K. (2017). Examining the nature of aggressive behaviour in Thai male prisoners and factors that contribute to its aetiology. Doctoral thesis, University of Birmingham. Retrieved from https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/8005

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE. (2018). Final report on the Project to Increase the Use of Diversionary Measure for Young Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System. Project report, Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection, Thailand.

RUTGERS AND IPPF. (2013). Explore: Toolkit for Involving Young People as Researchers in Sexual and Reproductive Health Programmes. Retrieved from http://www.rutgers.international/our-products/tools/explore

SAWASDIPANICH, N., PUEKTES, S., WANNASUNTAD, S., SRIYAPORN, A., CHAWMATHAGIT, C., SINTUNAYA, J., & PAUNGSAWAD, G. (2018). Development of healthcare facility standards for Thai female inmates. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 14(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-07-2017-0032

SHERMAN, L.W., STRANG, H., MAYO-WILSON, E., WOODS, D.J., & ARIEL, B. (2015). Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9222-9

SRIARUNSAWANG, C., & CHUA-HOM, C. (2015). Basic principles on key performance index and evaluation. Retrieved from

THONGYAI, P. (2020). Diversion: A comparative study of pretrial diversion schemes in Thailand and England. Thammasart Law Journal, 49(4), 727–753.

UMBREIT, M., & ARMOUR, M.P. (2010). Restorative justice as a social movement. In: ARMOUR, M., & UMBREIT, M. (eds.) Restorative justice dialogue. Springer, pp. 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826122599.0001

WONG, J.S., BOUCHARD, J., GRAVEL, J., BOUCHARD, M., & MORSELLI, C. (2016). Can at-risk youth be diverted from crime? A meta-analysis of restorative diversion programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1310–1329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816640835

YAMPRACHA, S. (2016). Understanding Thai sentencing culture. Doctoral thesis, University of Strathclyde. https://doi.org/10.48730/GFFB-5218

ZEHR, H. (2015). Changing lenses: Restorative justice for our times. Harrisonburg, Virginia: Herald Press.


  • There are currently no refbacks.