Cross-over kids: effective responses to children and young people in the youth justice and statutory Child Protection systems
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The study set out to examine the extent to which children and young people before the Criminal Division of the Victorian Children's Court were also clients of the statutory Child Protection system, and to better understand the characteristics of this group.It aimed also to discover the factors which contribute to the entry and entrenchment of these children in the criminal justice system.A mixed methods research design was adopted, with data collection from Children's Court file audits, and key stakeholder consultations, including focus groups and individual interviews. Proportion of children before the Children's Court who are cross-over childrenThe study found that across the court locations examined, 22% of the children before the Criminal Division were current or historical statutory Child Protection clients, and 12% had concurrent involvement in both Criminal and Family Divisions.The Latrobe Valley Court in regional Victoria had a substantially higher proportion of children with current or prior statutory Child Protection involvement (36%), compared to the metropolitan Courts in Melbourne (20%) and Moorabbin (18%). Key characteristics Poverty and cumulative adversityCross-over children typically come from a background of socio-economic disadvantage, with parents who were challenged in their capacity to protect and support their children.Family violence exposure, alongside household 2.2 Recent government and policy attention to cross-over children Concern about such over-representation of young people from child protection backgrounds in the youth justice system is a national issue.They are children whose circumstances have repeatedly been brought to attention in Australian reports, publications, and government Inquiries.In 2017, the review of Victorian Youth Justice services 9 , the NSW Child Protection Inquiry 10 , and the Final Report of the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory 11 all raised concerns about this group of young people.Persistent calls for action are evident also internationally, in research and policy canvassed in the US 12 , UK 13 , New Zealand 14 , and Canada 15 .Despite acknowledgement of such concerns, there remains a lack of knowledge about this 'cross-over' group of children, and little evidence about the most effective responses. Previous cross-over children researchThe limited research to date suggests greater disadvantage and complexity are present amongst the cross-over group compared to the overall youth justice population 16 .We know, for instance, that children from child protection backgrounds have a younger age of first contact with the criminal justice system compared to the overall youth justice population 17 , and that this younger onset is associated with an increased risk of progression to adult criminal justice system involvement 18 .The limited Australian data, arising from NSW, also evidences higher rates of violent physical and sexual victimisation, neglect, cognitive and mental health difficulties, educational and social isolation and exclusion among cross-over youth compared to the broader youth justice population 19 .
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».