Approaches for supporting youth dually involved in child protection and youth justice systems: An international policy analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high representation of children involved across both child protection and youth justice systems remains a pressing concern. Contributing factors include unnecessary police intervention for behavioural difficulties in residential care, and deficient systems integration particularly between child protection and youth justice. Policy reforms in the past 15–20 years have aimed to prevent and address this concern across jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. The study offers an updated review and analysis of these policies, targeting researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in the field. Examination of selected available policies identified four main strategies utilised: joint practice protocols, policies aimed at reducing the criminalisation of children in out-of-home care, crossover court lists, and specialised practice models like the Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM). There is promising evidence for some approaches, notably the CYPM, however, most suffer from a lack of implementation and outcomes evaluation, insufficient diversity considerations, and minimal inclusion of lived experience in design and implementation. Findings suggest future policy reforms should prioritise the development of whole-of-government strategies, involve children's perspectives, emphasise prevention, restorative and diversionary responses, multi-agency collaboration, ongoing support for implementation, and rigorous evaluation.
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 | 0.030 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".