Youth probation officers' interpretation and implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act: A case study of youth justice in Canada

Abstract

Many juvenile justice systems are characterized by an amalgam of different principles and ideologies, which have been incorporated into laws and policies regarding youth crime. This study examines the perceptions of youth probation officers (YPOs) concerning the 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) in Canada, which is one recent case example of a mixed model of juvenile justice. For instance, although the Act emphasizes diversion and community-based sanctions for first time and minor offenders, it also allows for adult-length custody sentences for the most serious and violent youth. This study asked YPOs about their understanding of the YCJA and their ability to apply the Act in their daily work as well as their access to community programs in 2004 and 2007. The results as well as previous research on the YCJA and policy implications are discussed.

Keywords:

• juvenile justice
• youth
• probation officers
• YCJA

Notes

1. Morris (2004) reported that in 2001 less than two-fifths of the cases in youth court resulted in a court order and 7% of those cases got transferred to district court. The majority of cases, however, were withdrawn or discharged after the successful completion of a family group conference.

2. YCJA, 2002, c. 1.

3. Section 3 (1)(a).

4. Sections 4 and 10.

5. R. v. D.B., [2008], S.C.J., No. 25, SCC.

6. YCJA, 2002, c. 1, section 3 (1)(c)(iv). Emphasis added.

7. The term “Gladue” reports stems from the criminal case R. v. Gladue, [1999] S.C.R., in which section 718 (2)(e) of the Criminal Code was specified and the specific circumstances of Aboriginal offenders were discussed and defined. See Rudin (2005) for a detailed discussion of the case.

8. Deferred Custody and Supervision Program (section 42 (2)(p)); Custody and Supervision Order (section 42 (2)(n),(o),(q) and (r)); Intensive Support and Supervision Program (section (42 (2)(l)); and Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision Program (section 42 (2)(r)).

9. 28.6% of the 2007 sample stated that they did not participate in the 2004 survey and 11.7% reported they would not know whether or not they completed the first survey. To examine whether the results differed between YPOs who participated in both surveys and YPOs who only filled out the 2007 questionnaire, a Mann-Whitney U-test was conducted. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the demographics and level of difficulty understanding and applying the Act.

10. As this adjustment has been criticized for being too conservative and, therefore, increasing the chances that a null hypothesis will be falsely accepted (Type II error) (Nakagawa, 2004; Perneger, 1998), it was decided to apply this more cautious approach to account for the increased probability of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. Furthermore, the results that were significant at the .05 but not at the adjusted significance level were rare and did not substantially differ from the overall results.

11. When the degree of correspondence between YPOs' understanding and application of each of the 18 sections in 2007 was examined, the results of the Kendall tau rank correlation coefficient indicated that all of the correlations might be characterized as positive and mostly moderate in strength (Table 2). Twelve of the 18 correlations were statistically significant at the .003 level (Bonferroni adjustment) and were greater than or equal to .385. Not surprisingly, the positive correlations signify that YPOs' perceived levels of difficulty in understanding and applying the different sections increase together. In other words, if YPOs had some difficulty understanding a section, they were also somewhat challenged by the application thereof.

12. Note the low number of responses for theses sections in Tables 3 and 4.

13. As a robustness check, an independent t-test was conducted, which yielded the same results as the Mann-Whitney U-test.

14. See for instance R. v. B.W.P., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 941 at para. 19.