‘Crossover kids’ in Manitoba: The intersection of the child protection system, youth criminal justice system and First Nations identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• First longitudinal whole-population study on crossover youth in Manitoba. • Youth in out-of-home care had a 10-fold higher risk of criminal accusations. • First Nations youth disproportionately affected in both systems. • Administrative data linkage enabled cross-sectoral, individual-level analysis. • Grad rates were lower than criminalization rates for youth in care and First Nations. Using linked, population-wide administrative data from Manitoba, Canada, we identified all children born in 1994 and followed them into early adulthood. We examined sociodemographics, educational achievement, involvement with child protection services (CPS), justice system contacts, and First Nations identity. We investigated the extent of overlap between ever being in out-of-home care of CPS and being charged with a crime in the youth criminal justice system, and how being First Nations intersects with these systems. We found that 36.4% of youth ever in care had a criminal charge between age 12–17, compared with 3.8% of youth with no CPS histories. Although First Nations comprise less than 15% of the Manitoba population, they accounted for 57% of children in care and 50.2% of youth with a criminal charge. More than 10 times as many First Nations youth had both a history of being in care and were charged with a crime, compared with all other Manitoba youth. Reducing the number of children in CPS care has the potential to reduce youth criminal justice system involvement. Actions to reduce the number of children in care should be based on policies that address socioeconomic disparities and systemic discrimination and through community-based First Nations-led programs. Proportional, timely and culturally appropriate extra-judicial measures geared toward addressing grief and trauma could reduce subsequent justice system involvement. Engagement of the communities most affected by the cross-over between child protection and youth criminal justice – marginalized, racialized, and minoritized populations – is essential for effective program and policy development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".