Central to the concept and philosophical base of "wrap around" and other "holistic" approaches is the notion of individualized and client-centred and directed assessment, planning, and service/program development. With the wrap-around approach, those working with the "client" are encouraged to focus on the impact, the context and the environment as key elements for predicting behaviour.

Moreover the focus is on highlighting, encouraging, and promoting positive behaviour. As a result, the expectation is that unlike most institutional files, which tend to chronicle every negative action and attribute assessed in an individual by educational, health, child welfare, juvenile and adult correctional staff, client files are expected to be a place for the documentation of positive interactions and activities. The purpose of the former and overwhelmingly most common form of institutional file management is essentially to chronicle staff and organizational responses in order to provide self-justificatory evidence for what might otherwise be judged inappropriate, discriminatory or otherwise negative responses to marginalized institutionally controlled subjects. Indeed, virtually every investigation into institutional incidents, especially those related to allegations of abuse, self-injury and death, tend to include significant discussion of the negative attributes of those in care or custody as a means of framing exculpatory assessments with respect to staff and therefore institutional involvement and responsibility.

As Madam Justice Arbour so clearly articulated throughout her report following the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, despite a mission statement, core values and over-riding legislation which direct CSC to administer its mandate and responsibilities in a manner that is lawful, fair and transparent, the entire correctional system, atmosphere and machinery is so intransigent, defensive and arrogant that rather than, "be responsive to outside criticism, and [be] prepared to engage in honest self-criticism ... to give a fair and honest account ... the approach [is] to deny error, defend against criticism, and to react without a proper investigation" (173).

Depending of course upon how the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) are interpreted and implemented, it could result in significant reductions in the use of custody for young people. For instance, more so than the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), the YCJA directs the Canadian criminal justice system to arrest and revise current regressive and increasingly punitive approaches to criminalized youth, including some very pointed provisions aimed absolutely at decreasing the current trend to criminalize our most marginalized young people. This reality notwithstanding, our experience with the implementation of the CCRA, not to mention the Young Offenders Act and the Charter, reveal that legislative direction and protection alone is not sufficient.

Accordingly, despite the overall direction of the Act, we must be extremely vigilant in order to ensure that the nature and purpose of the assessment provisions in sections 34 and 35 of the YCJA are implemented in a manner that promotes creative and positive interventions for youth. If the prevailing federally funded and developed corrections' models of actuarial risk assessment techniques prevail, however, it is far more likely that assessments for youth will similarly result in preoccupation and therefore an excessive focus on identifying, monitoring, apprehending and detaining any and all youth who are perceived as "risky."