“We are Still Running around with the Same Rules, but We are Not the Same We Were 20 Years Ago” – Exploring the Perceptions of Youth Justice Professionals on Secure Training Centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debates on the incarceration of children in residential settings has been ongoing for decades, with the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child and academic literature (Alston, 1994; Goldstein, Freud and Solnit, 1973; Anglin, 2004) acknowledging that custody is not in the best interest of the child. In England, the Social Services Inspectorate Report (1999) noted problems in placing children in Secure Training Centres and, nearly twenty years later, a BBC Panorama (2016) exposed the abuse of children at the hands of staff in the same Secure Training Centre (BBC, 2016). This paper examines staff' and other professional perceptions as to the purpose and direction of Secure Training Centres, youth custodial environments, through thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with staff members employed in Secure Training Centres and other professionals in the youth justice sector (i.e. Social Workers, Youth Offending Officers and Managers). It seeks to identify perceptions on the purpose and challenge of Secure Training Centres in supporting children who have experiences adverse circumstances resulting in trauma. It illustrates the need for embedding trauma-informed ‘Child First’ approaches in Secure Training Centres, and youth custodial environments globally, to enable staff to adequately support children to build empowering relationships.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".