Implementation of Canada's youth justice minimum age of 12: implications for children in Canada and globally.

Youth justice minimum age thresholds vary widely and are garnering increased global attention. In 1984, legislation in Canada excluded all children under age 12 from its youth justice system, yet few studies have examined implementation of the statute. We interviewed 22 experts across Canada to understand how the law functions and to guide responses in Canada and other nations. We used an inductive, thematic analysis process. Experts reported that excluding children under 12 from Canada's youth justice system has been effective in eliminating juvenile legal processing for children under 12, and promoting responses that identify and address the root causes of children's disruptive behavior outside of the legal system. Experts noted that addressing key gaps in funding and community service provision can reduce service variation by geography, race or ethnicity, socio-economic status, and ability or disability status and can enhance youths' success. Canada's experience suggests that for optimal implementation, minimum age laws should be coupled with robust funding and sufficient service provision to achieve racial justice and health equity.

Applying a Health Development Lens to Canada's Youth Justice Minimum Age Law.

OBJECTIVES: We applied a Life Course Health Development (LCHD) framework to examine experts' views on Canada's youth justice minimum age law of 12, which excludes children aged 11 and under from the youth justice system. METHODS: We interviewed 21 experts across Canada to understand their views on Canada's youth justice minimum age of 12. The 7 principles of the LCHD model (health development, unfolding, complexity, timing, plasticity, thriving, harmony) were used as a guiding framework for qualitative data analysis to understand the extent to which Canada's approach aligns with developmental science. RESULTS: Although the LCHD framework was not directly discussed in the interviews, the 7 LCHD framework concepts emerged in the analyses and correlated with 7 justice principles, which we refer to as "LCHD Child Justice Principles." Child involvement in the youth justice system was considered to be developmentally inappropriate, with alternative systems and approaches regarded as better suited to support children and address root causes of disruptive behaviors, so that all children could reach their potential and thrive. CONCLUSIONS: Canada's approach to its minimum age law aligns with the LCHD framework, indicating that Canada's approach adheres to concepts of developmental science. Intentionally applying LCHD-based interventions may be useful in reducing law enforcement contact of adolescents in Canada, and of children and adolescents in the United States, which currently lacks a minimum age law.