Young offender diversion in Canada: tensions and contradictions of social policy appropriation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under Canada’s Young Offenders Act (YOA, 1984–2003), the concept of diversion became an important feature of the youth justice system. Consisting of the formally constituted Alternative Measures program and other more informally administered procedures, diversion was developed as a means of responding to youth aged 12–17 years who have committed minor offences while minimizing their risks of stigmatization and recidivism. Although the YOA was subjected to persistent criticism concerning its ambiguity and contradictions, and was recently replaced by the new Youth Justice Criminal Act, very little research has been devoted to the implementation of young offender diversion programs. In this paper we present the results of a phenomenological inquiry into the practice of diversion in one large southern Ontario community. By regarding the implementation of diversion as a form of social policy appropriation by various professional groups, we highlight the perspectives of 17 practitioners who have had extensive experience in administering particular aspects of diversion programs. These perspectives differ in some fundamental ways, and thus help to illuminate the broad latitude that exists for discretionary decision-making in sanctioning youth who have committed minor offences. Such differences also reflect the variation of diversion practices and corresponding tensions among those responsible for this form of young offender disposition. The paper concludes by surmising that a two-tiered system of diversion is emerging that inadvertently may be diminishing the rights of minor young offenders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".