The Overlap Between the Child Welfare and Youth Justice Systems in Manitoba, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionManitoba has one of the highest rates of children taken into care of child welfare services (Child and Family Services; CFS) in the world, and also one of the highest youth incarceration rates in Canada. Policy-makers recognize there is overlap between these systems; the extent of that overlap is unknown. Objectives and ApproachWe linked CFS, Justice, and Population Health Registry data to quantify the overlap between having a history of CFS during childhood (0-17 years) and being charged with a crime as a youth (12-17 years). Using a cohort approach, we selected all individuals in Manitoba who were born in 1988 (N=28,178); those not in the province at any time from 12-17 years were excluded, leaving a final cohort of 18,182. The cohort was divided into 3 groups according to CFS involvement: CFS out-of-home care (1,148); CFS in-home services (3,395); no CFS (13,639). Criminal charges between 12-17 years were identified. Results6.3% of our cohort had CFS out-of-home care, 18.7% received CFS in-home services, and 75% had no CFS involvement. 10.5% of the cohort were charged of a crime between 12-17 years. Almost half (46.6%) of youth who had CFS out-of-home care had criminal charges, compared to 19.4% of youth who had CFS in-home services, and 5.3% of youth with no CFS. Despite accounting for only 6.3% of the cohort, youth who had out-of-home care accounted for 28.0% of youth with criminal charges. Indigenous (First Nations (FN) and Metis) children/youth were over-represented in both systems; for example, 24.5% of FN youth had been in care compared to 3.1% of non-Indigenous; and 32.2% of FN youth were charged with a crime compared to 6.6% of non-Indigenous youth. Conclusion/ImplicationsThere is substantial overlap between the child welfare and youth justice systems, with overrepresentation of Indigenous youth in both systems. Culturally appropriate programs and policies aimed at supporting parents, families and communities to care for their own children will likely have long-term positive impacts on the youth justice system.
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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 ».