Community-based responses to youth offending: politics, policy and practice under the Youth Criminal Justice Act
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This research focused on diversion and community-based alternatives to custody for young offenders. For the purposes of this research, diversion, and community-based responses to youth crime include informal processes and non-incarcerating sanctions utilized for young offenders for the purposes of diverting youth away from the formal justice system at any juncture, and/or reintegrating that offender within the community. Measures of interest included extrajudicial measures, extra-judicial sanctions, conferencing, restorative justice, and intensive support and supervision under the YCJA (2002). This research followed a qualitative approach to examine policy and practice. Phase 1 involved an examination of over a decade of policy-related discussions within the House of Commons and Senate as well as their respective committees and resulting legislation reported by Legisinfo. Initially, all transcripts were examined. At a later stage, a proportional stratified random sample was drawn, restricting the sample to 32 items. Phase 2 involved semi-structured interviews conducted with 14 professionals in the field of youth justice with the aim of accessing practice narratives on policy implementation. Chain-referral and maximum variation sampling techniques were employed to access a diverse group of professionals including police, youth workers, restorative justice personnel and probation officers in the regions of Greater Vancouver, the Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island in the province of British Columbia. Participants ranged in length of service from one year to over 35 years. Thematic narrative analysis of phases 1 and 2 occurred iteratively with data collection. In this dissertation, I present findings regarding community youth justice measures at three levels: the operational/practice level, the policy-making level and the macro socio-political level. Specifically, findings related to the operational level include: insufficient resources available to individual workers; narrowing the net of youth who are eligible for services; a reliance on informal and formal charitable contributions to provide basic youth justice services; and outsourcing of diversion strategies by government to community organizations. On a policy-making level, I discuss findings related to the complex fusion of restorative justice and diversion strategies; the substitution of anecdotes for evidence in policy-making; and the simple rather than complex stories used to frame the “youth justice problem” by policy-makers. Finally, on the macro socio-political level, I highlight the reversal of the welfare state and the associated implications of this reversal. I analyze and discuss the impacts that ideological and policy shifts have on policy-making and individual practice, notably on the efforts of professionals who must begin the work of closing the gaps in youth justice services, and who do so based on their own understanding of social responsibility and the “ethos of care.” This research contributes to the body of work on youth justice in Canada by exploring the connections and disconnects between policy discourses at each of the political, policy and practice levels and highlights how such a multi-dimensional analysis is a meaningful way to assess an important social policy issue.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».