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

We conducted semistructured interviews via Zoom, telephone, or in-person, between November 2020 and March 2021, with stakeholders across Canada with expertise relevant to Canada’s federal youth justice minimum age law. Stakeholder categories included law enforcement, youth justice, health, education, child welfare, and social service agencies. We sought academic experts, administrators, and frontline providers in these fields. We first conducted extensive literature review to understand the Canadian youth justice system and its minimum age law. We applied methods used previously in global comparisons of youth justice upper and lower age boundaries in regard to purposive sampling across stakeholder groups.¹⁹  We identified potential informants by generating a list of experts, based on literature review and internet searches for contacts at key agencies. We then used snowball sampling to expand the sample. We purposively sampled a range of experts that included federal, provincial, and local perspectives. Invitees represented a diversity of geographic regions across Canada reflective of the population distribution. Some participants were national leaders while others were on-the-ground practitioners; our focus was to gather views from the different types of professionals. Of 25 successful contacts, 21 individuals participated in the study (83%). Study participants included 5 academics, 4 legal youth advocates, 3 law enforcement officers, 2 child protection officers, 2 health professionals, 2 community service providers, 1 probation officer, 1 educator, and 1 youth justice policy expert. Participants also had substantial experience serving indigenous communities.

The semistructured interview guide (Supplemental Information) explored pathways for the implementation of Canada’s minimum age law, including conceptual rationale for the statute and for responses to children under 12. We asked participants to discuss roles of police, teachers, health providers, social workers, and other professionals in responding to children under 12 who come to the attention of law enforcement. We digitally recorded the interviews, and the files were transcribed by the research team.

We applied an LCHD framework¹⁸  to the interview transcripts in conducting thematic analysis.²⁰  We first open-coded several transcripts to familiarize ourselves with the data. During weekly team meetings, we generated initial codes, created a codebook, and then applied the codes to the transcripts in Dedoose software 1.3.34 (SCRC, Manhattan Beach, CA). We then conducted a second round of coding using the 7 LCHD principles (health development, unfolding, complexity, timing, plasticity, thriving, harmony) as sensitizing concepts, meaning that we applied the LCHD principles as codes. Next, we extrapolated concepts within the codes into themes to better understand how these perspectives mapped onto the LCHD framework. To enhance the rigor and trustworthiness of the findings, we discussed preliminary findings as a team and triangulated findings across stakeholder groups. The University of California, Los Angeles Office of the Human Research Protection Program approved all study procedures.

Although we did not ask questions directly about LCHD, the 7 LCHD framework concepts emerged and correlated with justice principles, referred to herein as “LCHD Child Justice Principles.” Figure 1 outlines the 7 LCHD Child Justice Principles and their relationship to LCHD concepts, demonstrating how child-serving systems and adult actors collaborated to support a child’s life trajectory using these principles. As depicted in the figure, stakeholders viewed children’s disruptive behavior as a symptom of distress, which they understood as indicative of a health development challenge or unmet need. The health or development concern was then responded to with support and interventions provided outside of the justice system. The LCHD Child Justice Principles reflect the conceptual framework shared by the Canadian stakeholders that supporting children is best and most fairly accomplished outside of the justice system. The figure also depicts interviewees’ views that by collectively providing support during crucial times in a child’s development, escalation of disruptive behaviors and future criminal justice system involvement can be prevented, allowing children to live healthy lives. In addition to LCHD, children’s rights as well as perceived effectiveness informed the conceptual approach to children under 12 who exhibit disruptive behavior and/or who come to the attention of law enforcement. The Canadian experts’ perspectives on each of the 7 LCHD principles with respect to conceptualization of Canada’s minimum age law are summarized below. Representative quotes for each principle are presented in Tables 1–7.

Aligned with the LCHD concept of health development (Table 1), interviewees expressed that the response to children under 12 who come to the attention of law enforcement considers both biomedical and biopsychosocial factors. The experts expressed that the justice system is not the right place to solve children’s health development-related issues and that interactions with law enforcement occur because of failures to address children’s health development and social needs. Disruptive behavior is seen as a “child support problem” rather than a “crime problem.” Interviewees also expressed the importance of shifting language to focus more on a child’s developmental trajectory to promote “well-being” and “growth” in children, a concept central to Canada’s restorative and rehabilitative model for youth justice.

Aligned with the LCHD concept of unfolding (Table 2), stakeholders discussed how children’s past trauma can affect their lives and interactions with others. For example, interviewees explained that a disproportionate number of children involved in the child welfare system are at heightened risk for entering the justice system once they reach age 12, as many have frequently struggled with a range of issues. These included intergenerational trauma (indigenous communities), poverty, lack of parental supports, behavioral issues, and other vulnerabilities or trauma, such as being removed from their family. In particular, child protection officers called attention to the “cultural genocide” targeting indigenous communities, with heightened rates of removal of children from families driving law enforcement contact. They explained how these traumas can affect a child's ability to develop healthily and how Canada’s mindset “operationally and philosophically” allows for nuance and adaptability as children develop. To prevent or address the escalation of disruptive behaviors, experts agreed on the importance of engaging with children and families early in life to avoid subsequent interactions with law enforcement throughout children’s lifespans. Interviewees also expressed that justice system involvement for children and youth of any age worsens children’s health trajectories.

Aligned with the LCHD concept of complexity (Table 3), respondents indicated that Canada’s approach to children’s health development and youth justice views children as individuals who interact with and are affected by their environment. Experts across various fields believed that children’s disruptive and risky behaviors could be attributed to multilevel interactions within their unique individual, family, and community ecosystems. For example, interviewees explained that children may need more support if they have experienced poverty, bullying, mental health or addiction challenges, or troubled home environments. Interviewees expressed that these external factors and children’s reciprocal interactions with challenging environments put children at higher risk of acting out and ultimately encountering law enforcement at a young age. Many highlighted the importance of viewing children as a product of their upbringing, environment, and past experiences to explain their troubled behavior and to guide intervention, as opposed to labeling them as problematic children and expecting them to have future interactions with law enforcement. Interviewees expressed that “Black [and indigenous] kids are going off to jails that don’t need to be,” indicating the view that belonging to a minority or indigenous community complicates a child’s interactions with his or her environment. Interviewees felt that calling attention to inequities was central to the conceptual approach Canada applies to address risky behavior in children.

Aligned with the LCHD concept of timing (Table 4), interviewees outlined the neurologic evidence to support the need for early intervention in children’s lives, especially during sensitive periods. They viewed early life as the “7 years of warning,” emphasizing early intervention by addressing preschool as well as elementary school behavioral issues through providing care and support for families. Participants also explained that the minimum age law provides federal funding support to provinces. Provinces then implement programs that focus on children ages 7 to 12 to address children’s troubled behaviors before adolescence, at which point youth with disruptive behaviors may have contact with the youth justice system. Stakeholders described that community supports, such as teachers, doctors, and program leaders, employ neurologic evidence to explain children’s developmental and disruptive behavior, and then create programming accordingly. For example, a pediatrician described herself as “a preventative grassroots individual,” expressing that “there’s no use waiting until the kids are 12 or 13 because by then we’ve missed the boat a lot of times.” Overall, stakeholders emphasized that identifying warning behaviors at an early age cannot only reduce societal costs associated with future justice system involvement, but also intangible costs to a child’s health and development.

Aligned with the LCHD concept of plasticity (Table 5), stakeholders agreed that children’s brains are not fully developed at age 12 (and far beyond this age as well) and are still quite sensitive and adaptive to changes in their environments. One legal youth advocate expressed that to subject children under age 12 to the youth justice system equates to ignoring their developmental needs and trajectories, stating that “children are extremely capable and vulnerable all at the same time” and that criminal justice responses do not take the “vulnerable” side into consideration. Others described that Canada’s evidence-based programs are designed to recognize children’s inherent “elasticity” and developmental malleability, and to avoid punitive solutions. Interviewees pointed to Stop Now and Plan as an example of an evidence-based, award-winning crime prevention model program developed in Canada for children between ages 7 and 12. Overall, interviewees conveyed that Canada’s approach to implementing its minimum age law relies on a child’s ability to continue to grow and change even after making a mistake. Children’s behavior is therefore not criminalized and instead is used as an opportunity to talk through their decisions, teach them how to make logical choices, and ultimately change their development and subsequent behavior.

Aligned with the LCHD concept of thriving (Table 6), interviewees expressed that for children to sustain healthy development throughout their lives, they must have the opportunities and supports needed to succeed. Interviewees explained that strong community supports in Canada are created by impactful programming and open communication between parents, teachers, doctors, social workers, and other professionals in a child’s life, as well as the firmly held belief that “all children can be successful.” Participants emphasized the value of identifying children’s strengths so that children can develop capacities that will enable them to succeed and thrive. Interviewees viewed helping children and families thrive as the responsibility of local communities and especially of supportive adult professionals across sectors, including education, health, and law enforcement. One police officer recounted several impactful stories about his continued relationships with children who displayed troubled behaviors. He explained that with the minimum age law and related supports in place, children have been able to find effective treatment outside of the youth justice system and now lead healthy and happy lives. The solutions presented to children prioritize their health, safety, wellbeing, healthy relationships, and ability to succeed above all else. Likewise, interviewees viewed the notion of punitive responses to children as impediments to later health and wellbeing.

Aligned with the LCHD concept of harmony (Table 7), stakeholders agreed that a punitive mindset ignores children’s fundamental need for care and support. Interviewees viewed a punitive response to children’s disruptive behaviors as a means of destroying relationships instead of growing them, emphasizing that Canada applies a preventive approach to at-risk children. Interviewees stated that achieving harmony goes beyond just one “offending” behavior or one instance of acting out, and instead focuses on multiple aspects of a child’s development. Interviewees explained that children can develop and learn from their troubled behavior, and a punitive mindset that criminalizes behavior is counterproductive. Interviewees also emphasized the importance of communication between children’s teachers, parents, doctors, and other supports to ensure that children are on healthy paths. Effective communication goes beyond surface level conversations with families and their children, and instead focuses on creating, developing, and following through with a plan and a system that will support the developmental needs of each individual child. Overall, interviewees felt that Canada’s minimum age law functions most effectively when adults apply “interdisciplinary approaches” to support children, and children under age 12 are guided to services and opportunities outside of the youth justice system in the form of supports from their family, teachers, and communities.

Our analysis reveals that the Canadian conceptual approach to its federal minimum age law, and to youth justice more generally, aligns well with the LCHD framework. Their conceptual approach to children under 12 who come under the attention of law enforcement or who exhibit disruptive behavior was consistent across stakeholder groups and included all 7 aspects of the LCHD frameworks. While we did not ask about the LCHD framework,¹⁸  nor use specific LCHD terminology, the rationale and concepts offered underlying Canada’s response to children in distress aligned nearly perfectly along these lines. In fact, participants expressed overarching concepts aligned with LCHD, including using language and terminology associated with its principles. Thus, the Canadian conceptual approach to children who come under the attention of law enforcement aligns with LCHD theory, likely reflecting that their approach is based on the acknowledgment that children require support to develop healthily and avoid justice system involvement.

If Canada were to purposefully apply an LCHD framework to their systems of support and intervention for children, they may find even more successful outcomes. The LCHD Child Justice principles derived from this study may be useful for improving future responses to Canadian youth over age 12, which could help put Canada in line with the United Nations recommendation of a minimum age of at least 14.¹  Additionally, Canadian interviewees recognized a need to enhance racial and ethnic equity for Black and Indigenous populations. Findings suggest that an LCHD toolbox tailored for vulnerable communities could help enhance equity in addressing children’s health development needs across the life course, especially at the earliest sensitive stages.

The LCHD Child Justice concepts may also be useful for guiding approaches to children and adolescents in the United States, which is recognized to be in great need of justice reform and addressing systemic racism in the cradle-to prison piepline.³  Of note, H.R. 2908, currently under consideration by US Congress, would set a minimum age of 12 for the federal justice system, and policy mechanisms exist to establish a federal standard that individual states are incentivized to comply with, creating an effective minimum age within state and local juvenile justice systems.²¹  Efforts toward youth justice reform in the United States have likely contributed to a 62% reduction in child and youth arrests from 2009 to 2019.⁵  Yet, it is unclear whether they came about from a conceptual shift in how children under age 12 are viewed. Prior research in the United States shows that children who exhibit disruptive behavior are often viewed as bad children who need and deserve punishment, as opposed to children who have complex issues and need support.¹⁵  Replicating a conceptual shift in the United States, as occurred in Canada beginning in 1984, may be challenged by the fact that Canada is well known to be a generous welfare state, whereas the United States is not. However, application of the LCHD framework may guide and expedite translation to the United States context.

A network of life course intervention researchers have developed outcomes to guide programs and policy.¹⁸  Findings suggest that potential opportunities to overtly apply LCHD tools, such as outcomes measurement and evidence-based interventions, may be of benefit. To guide such an approach, research priorities include: best practices for how to determine the root cause of troubled behavior in children; measurement of early childhood outcomes in relation to children’s contact with police and adolescent’s police and justice contact; expansion of evidence-based interventions for troubled children ages 7 to 12 and longitudinal outcomes measurement; life course interventions for minoritized youth with troubled behavior; and policy approaches to further systematically merge public policy with developmental science, including consideration of a minimum age of 14.

The study has several limitations. Canada is a diverse nation and provincial variation in policies and programs exist. Views about the minimum age law may have changed since their passage and, as this study occurred nearly 2 decades after, recall bias is a limitation. Also, it was not possible to gather perspectives from experts in all stakeholder categories in each province, group, or setting type, which limits transferability. Our interviews did not directly ask about the LCHD framework, nevertheless, the alignment of concepts was striking and may prove useful for understanding Canada’s implementation and for informing approaches in the United States.

The opinions of key stakeholders about the underpinnings of Canada’s minimum age law align with the LCHD framework. Their central tenet is that “disruptive behavior” is a symptom of a “child in distress” that merits and needs support, rather than punishment. The alignment between Canada’s minimum age law and youth justice philosophy with the LCHD framework presents opportunities for advancement of children’s health in accordance with developmental science, particularly as the United States might consider reforms that are in line with the United Nations resolution on age of criminal responsibility. Finally, findings suggest that, across nations, promotion of children’s healthy development through application of the 7 “LCHD Child Justice Principles” may help all children to reach their optimal potential and continue to thrive throughout their life course.

We thank our study participants. We also thank the Life Course Intervention Research Network (LCIRN), especially Neal Halfon, Shirley Russ, and Mary Berghaus.